Lower Salmon River Recreation Area overview

The Lower
Salmon River
and You-
Questions About
National Scenic &
Recreational Status
"if~ .,.. iiiG:
The Salmon River Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 289
Riggins, Idaho 83549
and the
Idaho Outfitters & Guides Association
P.O. Box 95 .
Boise, Idaho 8370 I
Reviewed for accuracy by the staff of the Regional Forester,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Region I.
:>
. ~ .... \._ "",\ '
f"-; •
•
•
What would National Scenic and Recrea
National Scenic and
Recreational designation of
the Lower Salmon is one way
of recognizing and protecting
the natural qualities of our
river. The following questions
and answers are provided to
help you get the facts about
possible designation.
Q: Why should I support National Scenic &
Recreational River designation?
A: The short answer is "to keep it the way it is."
The intent of the national Wild, Scenic and
Recreational Rivers Program is to "balance" the
ri\'ers lost to dams, diversions, channelization
and pollution with those rivers that will remain
protected. Only federal designation of the
special values of the Low.er.Salmon can provide
both p~rmfueilr P~te~tion and nar~ilar·
1
-~_t6ghjti'b"n.
Q. What would National Scenic &
Recreational designation do?
A: Designation would primarily affect federal lands
along the river. The Bureau of Land £ Management and the Forest Service would be
required to f?view lahp i));iqag!l)Jien! pfiil)s, with
public involvement, and assure that the special
values of the river are being adequately
protected. No" dams. or !Vatg ]lrojects.can be
built on designated river segments. Designation
of the river does not automatically restrict
mining.~Fa.r.rhs,jiitjches, hbltre~;incf cabins
along"J~e'"river \\1o_illd continU:e'tp be u~.ed as
nal River designation mean to you?
they-are now.)'!!vlsfcuCiures" within sight of ~he '
.river-could be built unless an~ntlivillual -
randowner sells a scenic easement ta.the federal-
Ian~ management·a~en'ty. 1
Q: How would National Scenic &
Recreational River designation affect
mining and agricultural practices?
A: The public"fands on the Lower Salmon River
have ~!ready been wit_h<!!;awn,frQm n!!\\1 mining 1
exploration by the BLM. Scenic and
Recreational designation would 'l'l.! i!!)pose new •
restrictions-on mining opehJijJjjs. QrJlziijg and
1agrj0JiiuraL activities-could ~<jntinue·op public
lands provided that"these"::ctivities do"not
degf~pe the Qutstanqil,lg qualities. \UJhe.rjyet.;
that caused it to be designated. In fact, the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act states that ·:.grr-uiiuiiif •
and f6testfypractices" sh~uid lie siinilai_ijl •
natUJe as they~ were before designation.~'
Normal state and federal regulations
still apply.
I,
I
•
•
•
Q: Will designation increase recreational use
and wm there be more trespassing on
private land?
River use niafincte"ase slighily as a result of
designation. 'frespassing should.nor-in.crease .,
since the BLM and Forest Service would
provide f!\_aps·anct sign~ to direct recreational
use to publicly owned access sites and will
continue to administer recreational use. P"'ti'V~f~ '
landown~sare stilf emitled to post their
propertY With ::N~ Tt~ij)8Ssing'' s~g!ls-o!. .. ""
require recreational users to ~qt3ip )andowner
<pei'iijissism.
Q: How would designation affect
water rights?
A: ,Secu;n 13(b)o"f iiie Act stares tliat'tlesignatiiih·~
/ lhas. no effect on .existing w~ter rights.
Applications for n~w watet rights will continue
to be administered by the •I(J:aho.Department.of
~agr-Rt!'S6urces under Idaho law.
Q: Can I still l.ru in1l-tnl'tish-,.,long the river?
A: Ye~, qesignation would not change fishing c·t
hunting in any way. They would continue to be
administered through the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game .
Q: Jfpuld J!!'signation affect @iter quailty
«tandards?
A: There are !iio special'W:!ter'1J.uality standarcts.for '
s'Ce(i,ic orre~reaticm~l rjyers. ~1\ll Jc\Wlo river"i are
subject to the water quality standards set in the
Federal Clean-Water Act and;administered
through the 1ct'aha.Department· of-HeaTih
~Welfare.
Q: How would designation affect the tourism
industry in Riggins and Central Idaho?
A: Designation would increase national recognition
of our river and m~y iroprove" the- busine.s~
SuCcess of those in the tourism sector of our
economy. The Salmon River is the longest
undammed tributary to the Columbia River.
- ......... ~-------~ .. ~· -~ ---- ----·
It would becolm! the lon)lesl"federally
~recognized.'\(/ilq, Scenic alld Recreati9~ar_Rjvet,.
in"fhel<Mef'48 states if"<tesigt\a,t~d .
~~ ~ - ~ ~- ' .
Q: What sections of the river are eligible
for possible Scenic & Recreational
designation?
A: The following map shows which portions of the
river are eligible for classification as Scenic and
Recreational Sections.
El Scenic section 53 miles
Ill Recreational section 59 miles
Produced with assistance from the
Northern Rockies Rivers Project
P.O. Box 633, Boise, Idaho 83701
; ·. ' il
~~ -:::.·'
. . •
•
•
'
Q: How would the river become Scenic
& Recreational?
A: A river normally is designated by an Act of
Congress. To pass such an Act would require
the support of Idaho's congressional delegation.
Hearings would be held to give the public an
opportunity to comment on the proposaL Local
support is a critical ingredient.
-.
~~
~\): '
•P. .' .~
'·. ff..{ r ;r., ...... ~
Q: Will the government~omlemn private
land along the river?
;
.~
•:'i'
A: No. Section·6(b) of the Wild and Scenic River
Act specificaily forbids the government from
!'fee titie~'coiicteillnaiion of private land if more
I ~ "'I ~ ~ ~~ tlian 50% of a designated nver is already
;pub"!iZl;·o;-ned as is the·L;;er Salmon.
Q: What effect would Scenic or Recreational
designation have on private la;,'Js along
the river?
A: Although private lands would be included within
the boundaries of the designation;®inagement.
'(~tric@lls-would''appl5'"6ply fo .JW.bJic laM~-·
The (ea".I:~rg_c\vemnjent"J1as no"P<iw.er fQ
regulate <>r·zone·priva1e lll"u.ds. If a proposed
development on private land is clearly
incompatible with the management plan for the
river the government·wonld 1iflerupt to.purJ:has"e~
.-amsceniC 'or cons.eryatU:m ~asetfteltt. Th~oWnef
would b~ able to sell <:ertllirf ~vMprfient"rightS"
and receive ~ p.ayment, y'etmretaifi" titfe to the '
,land·. He or she could still use it as it has been
used, restrictJldblic access, renfJ.t~selli!; 'tlr
1<!aVe\t'"tg ljis 9i' her heiQ;.
Q: What if I want to sdl my land after the
river is designated?
A: Your ability toouy"ot sell"pr(vat~ prope;tyiill
not chang~. Generally ,{property values on
designated rivers stay the&l[mj]f.imw'Q"ve.
Recent studies on the Upper Delaware River in
New York and Pennsylvania and the Rogue
River in Oregon show that land values along
designated rivers increase faster than
surrounding lands. You can sell your land to
anyone with the understanding that any ~cei](c
orcOt\servation'!ltSenf~l\ts th~t you sell are
"trunsferred with the title to the next landowner.
Q: Who would mam!lrf the river under
Scenic & Recreational designation?
A: After designation the ~aiid.: the Eorest
,.-Service would"C-;;;.ti;;'ue to manage federal lands
along the river. These'agencies would work..
together, with 'Public ihll!!,t,.TJ> wr(!_e. (.fiver
-management plan Tor the Scenic & Recreational
River Corridor.
Q: Will ilesigiJ,a]jtjp cause restrictions on
1'liftJfOri'zt;d Ji!;e-of the river?
A: No. Restrictions on'bt5ttting u~are not ..•
n'e£SS'ij'~ifyr~l~!e'd"tode;ignation. In the future,
rxcessi\>"e recreational u~e may cause harm to
the riverside environment and could be
restricfed r~gardiess of fed.;;.a(design;tio~.
These issues would be!WidieJ;ied_ih t~ river,
~ manag-~lnent-'plan.
vV}.~r~
~~ ,t~?
y\~ 1QA? .
_.. ~- ---...
"'\----~-------------------------------~------
~~ .. ,
--~---
Rec;.reaticn~ .US'a Ov~rview
Lower· Salmen R~ver
Recreation use en the Lower Salmen River has increased rapidly during the
v~. fifteen years· that haye elaps~d s~nce the-Wild and Scenic Rive~s Study was
completed. Fer example, in 197.5; the ~i~t year accurate statistics were
· · available, tota-l r(e;o.x:Q~st cve:c:night 'fl:cat beating use was- 4'3.. trips with ~~79
\ ~- visitors. In -~~F.o the totals were ?!16 -trips with-.5.'(450 vis:!;t'Ors. In 1975.' nO>
~\~\V' vd~y use float _beating was recorded; in l}l8(.;. ever :rs.,OO.Q_ ·~u. usa flcat~rs· used
the Lower Salmen.
•
Commercial use by river outfitters has shewn remarkable increases. In ~~7~. a
total of nina cutfitt~rs offered commercial trips en the Lower Salmen. In
~9~7, ~crty-fcur different outfitters operated trips.
Non-floating usa, particularly stielnaad .fishing~ is also increasing at a rapid
rata. In 19!78, the fish runs were nearly d.ajilated; and no fish:lng season was
held. In 1981i, there was a s.~al.11'!ontH __ sayon; with mere 1;han '15.:"0.00' .~lfgldi:'s,
fishing the Lower Salmen River.
'Total" recreation .viisi ta"tJ;Qri to the Lower Salmen Ri var in ·f~lf6 "tas j \J'st ever
i50~0~0 visitors •. Besides floating and fishing, ether p~imary activ;tias
include .camping, picnicking,_ swimming1 and sight-seeing. Visiter su.rveyll ·­conducted
by the BLM have indicated that viewing scenery· and •pe~a and qu~at•
are ·among the aiQitt impcr;tan't;' jeaso~s} fer. visiting the riv.er,
Summaries of th.e usa statistics, visiter profiles! .and visitpr preference
studies can be found in the River Management Plans (included elsewhere· in this
packet>. Currant usa reports and '!isitcr studies are maintained by the BLM •
Ccttcnwccd Resource Area Of~ica,
'
z
~
I(r. ; ;: " .....
••
•
.._.
The~~ Sal!?~i~~~· from Long Tom Bar t~ its ~onf~uence with the Snake
River, was desigha~ea a study river under ~action SC~J· of the 1968 Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. E'Oilowihg"compfetipn o"f the s:tt~.tl¥ in 197:!, the rive]:'~wa·s
·~ecommended "to-Cdngres& for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
lo • ,.. ~ - System: Long Tom Bar to Hammer Creek as a ~ecreational component, and'Hammer
Creek to the Snake River as a.~cenic component. The study recommended the
Bureau of Land Management CBLWloas the lea~ ajifeney to manage this seg~ent of
river. Since that time, BLM has managed the· Lower Salmon River to protect the
values for which it was deemed eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic·
Rivers System, pending congressional action on designation.
The enclosed information package contains pertinent documents relating tQ the
currant management situation on the .Lower Salmon. Included in the package are
a ·map !lhowing ~<J.nd··o'l!nership s'!=atus; a chrq:!'O'll:ig;l.cal:' .Jiistory of legislative and
administrative actions pertaining to the Lower Salmon; :.two .Land
Repprt/Env1ronmen~al fts~essmehts p~epared during the processin~·of
protective Secretarial ~fthdrawals; t'l!o Recreaticn.Manaqea~nt.P~anst one'
gul:t~ral R.e!f~!ll='C!i' Manag'ement .. Plan; and ·an oyerv.iew ,of current recreation use· b.n.
the Lower Salmon River.·
The following issues will likely surface during consideration of any proposed
legislation:
ll
•
1Minerals 'Ma'nagemerit. Public larids administ!lred by the BLM along the
Lower Salmon River are aiiminis~atively wi~dra,wn frp)lt disposal actions
~and ~±ne~al_e.ntry. However, within the river segment from Long 'Tom· ~~r
to·.Hamllfsr Creek, there are currently niJle •grandfathered" miriing claims
on pttclic lands. Also, the ~tate of Idaho .has issued a n~mbar of
streambed ~eases for mining in this river segment, and there are
approximately 27 minin~ claims on ~.s: .Forest Service lands. There are
IJ!l • njini'ng claim.s ·on public l.1lna. down.straaiiLfrom· ·Hammer Creek,. and tl!e
~1;.1!-~e .{lf Idaho. haf ;:los~~ the streambed to all fbrms of mining.
At the present time we are managing threij separate operations' under our
•surface ·man9c;j'ement• regulations (43:CF,2 .3a09.1:-4Cbl (2J l in coordination
with th-e Idaho Department of Lands through a ~Ml!lll.~raiidum .of
»nders~!nq~ng.• Various options have been discussed conc!lrning the
disposition of the unpat~nted claims which include: Cll a mineral estate
exchange, (2) V!ll"~di"t;Y. ~~llm~J\!!>t_:!;c:J!l,l!• and (3) the Rtlt'reiit situation under
our existing management authority.
There are prese.ntly· no: pro\t:i.sions. for a .ginllrlll . .slft'llt:e exchange involving
mining claims. Yalldi~y .~x~~i~~~~ons, as well as preliminary
examinations, have been considered. Based on available information there
is a f~ir potential that some of the claims would be valid.
If Wild and Scenic River desi9natic~ occurs, and qrandfathered mining
claims emerge as -valid:axf~~ing tightS; the following questions may be
considered:
a. Are the ~~~st~ng Cfa~ms and/or operations compa-tible witH Recreation
design~tion? If so, no ~urther action need be taken •
..
•
••
b.
c.
d.
Shottlli' desl'gnation Jllake permanent' t!ie. ~io~~ting .adlilinill"tra,tive , >"
withdrawal to prevent future minerals activitY. except on val±d
existing claims?
Should the BLM be given the authority to purchase or exchange for
existing mining claims?
Should legislation provide more stringent enforcement capabilities
and surface ,protection standards for mining on existing claims wlth­in
this river segment?
2• Condemnation Authority. Tqe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies certain
instances when condemnation authority may be exercised. Since more th~n·
50S of the ·L?1fer S_almon River shore~ine ill already in P,!olblic ownership,
~co~daMfia~ion for fa~ tit~e.is prohibi~ed by the Act. As currently
written, condemnation could. be authorized to obtain scenic easement~ or
use easements tor public access. ·
3.
Since there has been and continues to be a great deal of opposition to
condemnation, any legislative proposal should'clearly specify what type
of condemnation, if any, would be ~uthorized. The following options
appear to be available:
a. ·'No' condemnation authority at all;
b. Condemnation authority as ~rovided in the-Act;
c. Specific languagl! autho_r_izing condemhation for -seenib-easemen.Cs:""on1y.
in ~h.tt proposed· :§cen~c ~segment'! '
Area Boundaries. Tpe boundaries of the area to be designated.must be
specific. Legal subdivision descriptions similar to those describing the
ex:Lsting Secretarial withdrawal would. be the most appropriate-.
4. Budget and Finances. Since the B~~.i~-already managing the river
corridor under 'ii'il.d'-and.-Scenic:. Rivers guidelinelf, it appears .that a major
;ncr ease i'n fundlnq wb\lld' no,t. li~ required. ~3.8-t'ing management plans for
the area, if deemed appropriate, c~Uld ~dAtiri~e ~o be implemented with
only incremental budget increases, as necessary, to manage increased
recreation use caused by the notoriety of designation.
Special appropriations from the J,and ~nd Wat'et'-Conser-vation ·Fund may be
appropriate to facilitatelfurur~·~na-tenure adjustment efforts along the
,/ river. At present, land exch~nges or donatipns are the only
methods of acquiring key riverfront parcels from willing landowners.
Hopefully, this packet will provide complete and adequat~ information. If
furthec information or assistance becomes necessary, it will be readily
provided upon request •
~
t•
ll""*
{ • ~
•
1:968
1973
1973
19tlo'
r
LmlER SALMON RIVER.
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTOR>Y·
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designated ~3i-miles· of the Salmon River,
from the 1;~ rt; Nqrth :Fork, to its <;:onfluen,ce with the,'SQa.k¢'')3.iyfilr·, a
Study River.
A~s~Ud1 was ~omp)&ted.for the S?lmon Riv~r and the recbmm~ndation~to
~ong~ess was to include the ~ntire 237-miles of study river in the Wild
and Scenic Rivers System.
BLM mad~ a'!lP:llt;at'ion to witniiraw the public landfi along the Salmon River
downstream from Long Tom Bar tq pro±eci lt· until Co!J.g"i'ess .determined
whether or not to add it to the Wild and s·cen:ic lUvers System. The
withdrawal a1fpllcahon y:roviiied protection until.l99l. ·
Genttiil#liiaho Wiid:ernes.s"'k.t designated the Salmon River frolii.J{Q.~h:.'Fork.
,J:o Long To~ ·Bar as a component of the,'"Wi.:J,q' and "Scenic .lliV:ers SY:!!.teJ:!t'., .A
'Wild and Scenic determination for the Lower Salmon River· downstream from
Long Tom Bar was deferred for futu~e consideration.
1986 BLM ~:omp1:eteli'"'proc;essiJ?-S.:!'.f _"fj:~·:~ppjJ."fa1:16n for prot~cti ve -withdrawal
-- for Jlillf of the Lower Salmon River.· The public :lan'ds adjacent to the
Salmon River from the mouth of Hiulmier··ereek to:-the.·confluence . .were
·• J9:thdrawn .for. 20 :y;ev::l Jl1 'lllltlioi;;!,ty of the Secretary of t!te ,Int_erior-.
~
1.988 BL.~ completed prqcessing the protective withdrawal application for the
remaining portion of the Lower' .Sal11ion River. The. BLM adiiUnistered
public lands from -):.eng Tom Bar 1=0 the mouth of ~amoier. Creek 'were
.withdrawn· for 20"'years. by authority of the Secretary of the Interitfr.
Current Status
That portion of ·the Salmon River from the town of North Forf5. to Long Tom
Bar is a component of the Wild -and Scenic Rivers System-administered by
the U.S. Forest Service.
'Tb.e Lower Sa;J..uion River, frQm Long Tom Bar .to its confluence 'i(ith the
Snake River, is pending Congressional action to either add ~t to the
lii,ld and Scenic Rivers System or elimib.ate it from further
consideration. The BLM-~dministered public lands along this -segment df
river are protected by Secretarial withdrawal ~nd are managed in ·
accordance with the r~commended study river status. There are sdffie u.~.
Forest Service administered lands dong the Dower "Salmon· River ~
immedia"t~ly -qownstream from Lt>ng T~m· Bar w~icli are ~~t- p;9~~ted· or
managed ~s:.t;·1~e~·were~part. of .a st~4y ~~ver •
. - -
..~
'
•
•
•
16 uses § 1276
1984. Act June 19, 1984, in subsec. (a), added para. (89).
CROSS REFERENCES
This section is referred to in 16 USeS§§ 460gg·13, 1275, 1278-1280, 1283;
30 uses § 1212.
§ 1277. Land acquisition
(a) Grant of authority to acquire; ·State and Indian lands; use of ap11ro1m
ated funds. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agric•"lttlll
are each authorized to acquire lands and interests in land
authorized boundaries of any component of the national wild and
rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act [16 USCS § 12
hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress,
is administered by him, but he shall not acquire fee title to an average
more than 100 acres per mile on both sides of the river. Lands owned by a
State may be acquired only by donation, and lands owned by an Indian
tribe or a political subdivision of a State may not be acquired without tbc
consent of the appropriate governing body thereof as long as the Indian
tribe or political subdivision is following a plan for management and
protection of the lands which the Secretary finds protects the land and
assures its use for purposes consistent with this Act [16 USCS §§ 1271 e1
seq.]. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the land and water
conservation fund shall, w(thout prejudice to the use of appropriatioas
from other sources, be available "to Federal departments and agencies for
the acquisition of property for the purposes of thi~ Act [16 USCS §§ 1271
seq.].
(b) Curtailment of condemnation power in area 50 per centum or more ~
which is owned by Federal or State government. If 50 per centum or more
of the entire acreage within a federally administered wild, scenic or
recreational river area is owned by the United States, by the State or StateS
within which it lies, or by political subdivisions of those States, neither
Secretary shall acquire fee title to any lands by condemnation under
authority of this Act [16 uses §§ 1271 et seq.].INothing contained in
section, however, shall preclude the use of condemnation when nec:essUJ.
to clear title or to acquire scenic easements or such other easements as
reasonably necessary to give ·the public access to the river and to permit
members to traverse the length of the area or of selected segments
c) Curtailment of condemnation power in urban areas covered by
and satisfactory zoning ordinances. Neither the Secretary of the
nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by co~ode1nmati0
the purpose of including such lands in any national wild,
... ~ ........... : .... --1 -=-·-- ---- !/:!' --- _,_ 1 . .. ·.~ .
,...-,
l •
••
~
'·
~- 12·'/Ai o/_:a..
~~
:&~~7E;J .,b ~
..,fl.;., s~ ~cu­To:
From:
Re:
~
On November 26, 1991, Senator Craig dropped in S. 2101 a bill: ~
"To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating • J ~ \.)
the Lower Salmon River in Idaho as a component of the v~ ,C~
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other ~-- _ ---
purposes." ~
I talked to Scooch today and she thought that this bill was ~~
pretty straightforward. She did bring up one point she believed ~
to be potentially troublesome to Chairman Vento. ~
The potential~ sticking point with Vento comes in the area of
"Scenic Easements." In Section (2) Subsection (C), the
legislation states that "private lands and interests in lands
(scenic easements) may be acquired only with the consent of the
owner." This is a break from traditional policy concerning
scenic easements.
She doesn't, however, believe there will be a general problem
concerning condemnation because over 50 percent of the land is
owned by the Federal Government. Subsection (b) of Section 1277
(Land acquisition) discusses "Curtailment of condemnation power
in area 50 % or more of which is owned by Federal or State
government." The subsection states that if 50 percent or more of
the entire acreage is owned by the United States, the secretary
shall not condemn additional lands. Much more than 50 percent of
the land around the Lower Salmon is owned by the feds so there
will be no condemnation involved with the withdrawal.
Scooch suggested a meeting between herself, our office, Stan
Sloss, and Beth of American Rivers. I will put this together if
you so desire. If you need any more info, I've got it.
--.'·. .., .... :.:· •
16 uses § 1276 CONSER VA
1984, Act June 19, 1984, in subsec. (a), added para. (89).
CROSS REFERENCES
This section is referred to in 16 USCS §§ 460gg-13, 1275, 1278-1280, 1283;
30 uses § 1212.
§ 1277. Land acquisition
(a) Grant of authority to acquire; State and Indian lands; use of ao"ororll'i
ated funds. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agricult11111
are each authorized to acquire lands and interests in .land
authorized boundaries of any component of the national wild and
rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act [16 USeS §
hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress,
\y is administered by him, but. he shillCnoCacquii'e fee'tit!e tq_·an avJ!rage
{\
':{; more than JOO·acres·per:milJ< on·botJi ~ides of. the. river. -Lands owned
.t 7 ~ate may be acquirea only by ponation, 'lind lands owned by an 1 ~"'--'-
/ 1, 1
-- ~.V · 7, tribe or a political subdivision of a State may not.be acquired without the
!._r 1.. c~nsent of t~~ appropr!a~e. gov~ming ~~ _there~! as long as the Indian
tnbe or polittcal subdtvtston ts followtng_ a P.Jap ' for management and
,·\~r-- protection of the lands )\1liicli' the.Secrets;ty-fiJUis .pi'o"tects the land and
\:""" assures its use '.[qr:-purposes consistent -with this Act [16 uses §§ 1271 ct
seq.]. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the lallil:.'llno: ~l!..te'f
C'O_~tYation lund shall, without prejudice to the use of approp'riatioDs
from other sources, be available to Federal departments and agencies for
the acquisition of property for the purposes of this Act [16 USes §§ 1271
seq.].
(b) Ciuiiillment. of condemnation power in area 50 per centum or more fll
· :iliich is owned by ·Federal or State goUI'IIDient. If 50 per centum or more
of the entire acreage within a federally administered wild, scenic or
recreational river area is owned by the United States, by the State or States
within which it lies, or by political s_ubdivisions of those States, ntit!fer
~ecretarx shalf acquire fee title to any land~ by- corrdemnation undel'
authority of this Act [16 uses §§ 1271 et seq.].'INothing c~~~~~::~
~tion, however, sjlall· preclude ihe use of condemnation 'wnc!!f
to ,clear titlt: or !O _acquire scenic easements or _!;uch other ~ments ~
reasonably necessary to give the.public access to the river and to penntl
members to traverse the length of the area or of selected segments
c) Curtailment of condemnation power in urban areas covered
and satisfactory zoning ordinances. Neither the Secretary of the·
nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by cortde:mitatia
the purpose of including such lands in any national wild, .. ~ ......... ; .... _ .. , -=··-- ---- !~ -·· ·'· t • ~ •.••
•
... ••
;· ••
•
~
-:;-.. 7
r~ttD ,
___ BUFFING UP THE NATIONAL JEWELS:
A~ON STRATEGY FOR THE SALMON AND THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE SALMON
WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
I. Introduction
A. Background
The Salmon River ?ri~i~ffi rn·,h~ Sawtooth and rem~i Valleys of central
and eastern Idaho. :Snows• from the S,awt"ooth and ;Sa1.m.on River Mountains. in the
south and the Clearwater and Bicterroo~·Mountains in the"n~rth feed this wild
ri~er. It is 4~5 miles long, the longest free-flowing river in the continental
~nit~d States, and drains 14,000 square miles, From elevations above·8,000
feet, the Salmon cascades to an elevation of 905 feet before it joins the Snake
River.
The river is b~storfcally known as "The~l~er of No ~eturn." For mor~ than,lSO
years_af~er the fir3t white men came to this valley, only one-waJ"trips down
1t!w Salmon River W.ere pOs"sible-.· In recent years, with the advent of;pow=r
boats, skilled operators have been .able to travel ~priver. Even ·tpday,
however, this trip demands the best in skill, experience and equipment.
The Salmon flows through a vast wilderness in the ~cond deep~~ gorge on lne
pontinent. Only the Snake River canyon is deeper. The Salmon's granite-~alled
canyon.is pne-fiftn of a ~ile deeper tnah Grand Canyon. ~Qr.approximately 180
:miles, the Salmon cany?n is mo•e ehan one mile qeep •
Tne Middie ~ork of the Salmon River originates 20 miles northwest of Stanley,
Idaho, with the merging of Bear Valley and Marsh Creeks. It traverses portions
of the Challis, Payette and Salmon National Forests as it flows 106 miles,
northeast through one of the deepest gorges in North America before joining the
Salmon River. It passes through a landscape of rugged peaks and deep valleys.
Near its junction with the Salmon River are the Bighorn Crags, one of the most
rugged and wild mountain ranges in the nation. Only a few trails, landing
strips, private ranches and Forest Service stations are evidence of man's
presence. It is this combination of rugged scenic beauty, quiet isolation and
the challenge of wild water that draws people to float the Middle Fork of the
Salmon River.
Congress established the Middle Fork of the Salmon River as a Wild River in the
original Wild & Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. The Salmon River received it's
designation of a Recreation segment and a Wild segment in the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act in 1980. The remainder of the river upstream from North Fork,
Idaho to it's headwaters has been determined eligible as a Recreation River.
The S~l~op' nistrict ot the BUreau of'Land"Hanagement will be the lead Agency
for the sunaolll:t)! p_r:u"dy. ·with assistance fr.om the ·s.almon, -chall!s anc!.
•.Sawtooth National Forests.
The units involved in the day-to-day management of these rivers have long
recognized that they have not received the emphasis or attention that they
require. Growing numbers of river floaters, jet boaters, hikers, packers, and
the return of the steelhead runs, as well as the pending return of the salmon
runs, and the attendant sport fishing use that follows, have left River
•~
•
•
Managers with ar ever-increasing customer demand for facilities and services
·that normal operations and processes have failed completely to keep pace with.
This paper is being prepared to bring together all the~cattere~ effort~ that
are under way in relation to management of the Wild & Scenic rivers. The
personnel involved with these rivers have the highest commitment to reach a
more appropriate level of management and provision of services so that we can
not only cope with the existing public demand for a high quality resource that
is of National significance, but also prepare for the future increases that are
inevitable from the State-wide and Nation-wide marketing of the Recreation
Strategy, the increased emphasis on promotion from the Idaho Travel Council,
Chamber of Commerce subregions, Outfitter & Guide association, etc.
Sources of available funding, projects already.in the mill, outside cooperators
and partners are contained in recreation construction project lists, trail
construction project lists, and outyear budget requests, including increments
and building blocks. One of the purposes of this paper is to pull all these
scattered efforts together into a ready reference for managers to consider
c~mponents of the program as special emphasis dollars, special allocations or
year-end savings become available
B. PARTNERS
There are many exciting and valuable partners that are concerned with the
care and management of the Salmon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild and
Scenic Rivers. Some have expressed interest in sharing in the care of the
river resource. Some are already cooperators in river management. We are
thrilled with the prospect of developing stronger ties with these partners and
improving the care of a unique Idaho jewel by combining our resources.
Two successful examples o~\Pa~~nars~f~r:l996~are projects that were selected in
the regional Challenge Cost Share competition. "Steelhead Season Sanitation"
joined partners in improving the san!ca~ip~ facil1t1es along the Salmon River.
The Salmon National Forest, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited, and the Idaho
Department of Fish & Game each committed one third of the cost to rent 15
porta-potties during a season which in the past we have been unable to
adequately manage. "Partnership Trash Bags" was an idea that actually came
from the partners. This project, funded 50% by three forests and 50% shared
evenly by Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Outfitters and Guides
Association, and the Bureau of Land Management, serves river users on both the
Middle Fork and the Salmon Rivers and with the information printed on the bags,
not only reminds users of their responsibility to the resource, but also notes
the partners who share in the management of the rivers. There are many more
opportunities out there available to us, many more resources to tap.
The following list indicates partners that are included in the project
breakdown found in this paper in section II. It also includes partners that
are concerned with the river but are not yet tied to a specific project. Not
all partners are listed. We expect this to be a dynamic list;·continuously
evolving as more partners are discovered and excellence in Wild and Scenic
River management progresses .
•
•
•
Existing Partners
Bureau of Land Management
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Outfitter and Guide Association
Back Country Horsemen
Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited
Bonneville Power Administration
~uture-Partners
··· ·Salmon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Idaho State Historical Society
Individual river outfitters
Travel and tourism industry
Publishing organizations
Local churches
Local schools and-universities
Environmental organizations
Idaho Travel Council (Region 7)
American Rivers, Inc.
Western River Guides Association
National Organization of River Sports
C. Supporting Documents
1. Public Law .96 "31?" •. JUly--~3, -1980, the Central Idaho Wilderness
Act. This is the legislation which established both the Frllnk 'Church Rfve·t
-of N~ R~torn ~ Wifd~rness and the'Salmon as a Wil4 and Sceni~River.
. ' 2. Public Law 90-542, October 2, 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers. ;- Ac~. This legislation instituted the national wild and scenic rivers
system. _It;. also set aside .the ~~'lidre .. Fork of the Salmon River as one of
the•~ffginal components of that system.
3. Forest Service Manual 2354. Forest d~rection on River Recreation
Management.
4. Land'and Resource Management Plans of the Salmon;· Bitterroot, Nez
Perce, and Payette National Forests address the management of the Salmon
River. The Land and Resource Management Plans of the Challis and Salmon
National Forests address the management of the Middle Fork of the Salmon
River. Specific management guidelines and objectives are detailed in the
Salmon Wild and Scenic River Management Plan and the Middle Fork Wild and
Scenic River Management Plan. The various forest Land and Resource
Management Plans direct the forests to manage these rivers in accordance
with their appropriate management plans.
5. ~almon·Wild & ~cenic River Managem~nt Plan, approvea·-in i982.
6. Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild & Scenic River Management Plan
7. Recreation Review, developed in 1987, presents several suggestions
on the future of the Recreation Program Region-wide and promotes emphasis
•
•
•
for Congressionally-designated areas, such c.s Wild 6 Scenic rivers .
D. Organization
The document is organized by logical river segments. Projects, "things to
do", staffing, etc are displayed by priority for each listed river segment.
The river segments are:
SEGMENT 1 - Salmon River from Ellis downstream to North Fork - not
currently classified but eligible. Administrative units are
Salmon National Forest and Salmon District BLM. This segment
contains all of our cooperative efforts with BLM.
SEGMENT 2 - Salmon River from North Fork to Corn Creek - classification is
Recreation River. Administrative unit is Salmon National Forest
SEGMENT 3 - Salmon River from Corn Creek to Long Tom Bar - classificati~n
is Wild River. Administrative units involved are Salmon,
Bitterroot, Nez Perce and Payette National Forests.
SEGMENT 4 - Salmon River from Lotlg Yom- B'ar- i:o Riggins. Not currently
classified but eligible. Administrative units are Payette and
Nez Perce National Forests.
SEGMENT 5 - Middle Fork of the Salmon River. Classification is Wild River.
Administrative units are Challis and Salmon National Forests .
•
' •
•
•
II. Identified Needs by River Segment by Priority
SEGMENT 1 - SALMON RIVER FROM ELLIS TO NORTH FORK
1. Camp Creek
A. Plan design and build campground facilities including but not
limited to: day use area, 4-6 campsites, boat launching
facilities, vault restrooms and associated roadway and parking.
B. Estimated cost: $25,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
2. Iron Creek
A. Plan, design and build day use area including 2-3 picnic
sites, vault restroom, boat launching facilities and associated
roadway and parking area.
B. Estimated cost: $14,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
3. Pop's Gulch
A. Plan, design and build boat launching facilities, vault
restroom and associated roadway and parking area.
B. Estimated cost: $10,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
4. Eleven Mile
A.~Plan, design and build boat launching facilities, vault
restroom and tWo picnic sites.
B. Estimated cost: $12,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
5. Shoup Bridge Recreation Site
A. Plan, design and build expanded recreational vehicle access
by replacing or rebuilding existing campsites to accommodate
today's larger recreational vehicles, develop well.
B. Estimated cost: $17,500
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds •
·~
•
•
6. Morgan Bar Recreation Site
A. Plan, design and build tent and RV campsit~s and repair
existing well.
B. Estimated cost: $15,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
7. Tower Rock
A. Plan, design and build w~ll.
B. Estimated cost: $7,500
C. How to accofuplish: BLM appropriated funds.
8. Eightmile Walk-In Fishing Access
A. Plan, design and build v~ult toilet.
B. Estimated cost: $7,500
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds,
SEGMENT 2 • SALMON RIVER FROM NORTH FORK TO CORN CREEK
1. Current program
A. The existing budget in the recreation section of the river
includes the following items:
Care of developed recreation sites including litter clean-up,
facility maintenance, out house pumping, lawn care, weed control,
trash removal, drinking water testing, and visitor contacts.
Care of dispersed recreation sites including litter clean-up,
destroying fire rings, removing nails and game poles from trees,
contacting forest visitors to inform and edu~ate.
Patrolling the river corridor during heavy use seasons
particularly during Steelhead season.
Permitting and regulating seven commercial outfitters who
operate within the recreation section of the river.
Planning and management of the recreation section of·the
river, of developed and dispersed sites along the·corridor, of
land acquisitions, exch3nges and scenic easements •
:-;
•~
•
•
B. Estimated cost: $45,000/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in base
level (all FY).
2. Cleanup of old homesites.
A. Complete the cleanup and hauling of debris at Proctor, Anita,
Cove, Ga7.ebo Flat and Moose Creeks including cables, rock walls,
fence posts and barbed wire,
This projec!: will requirP. a minimum of 2 GS-3's for approximately
2 weeks for clean-up and rehabilitation. If helicopter work us
needed project cost will raise significantly.
B. Estimated cost: $2000
C. How to accomplish: Fore~t recreation O&M budget in base
level (FY92).
3. Glenn Hegstead Site
A. Determine future of this site and associated buildings.
Alternatives range from elimination to cleanup and restoration.
B. Estimated cost: Restore • $9000; Eliminate - $1000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in base
level (FY92) .
. 4. Increased FS visibility during high use periods.
A. Increased road patrol/Law Enforcement/public contact.
This could be accomplished by using 2 GS-S's to patrol roads and
make contacts with visitors (pri.marily anglers) fi:om October 1
through November 30. A check station would also be·manned during
the same time period to inform, educate, and distribute
information. ·
B. Estimated cost: $8,000/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in base
level (FY92).
5. Human Waste and Garbage Disposal
A. Enlarge and improve human waste disposal facility and
dumpsters at the Dump Creek site.
As the success of our porta-potty program grows the disposal
facility becomes less and less adequate. To avoid future health
problems this facility needs ~o be enlarged and updated.
•
•
B. Estimated cost: $6000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation improvement budget
in increment lD (FY92) and in partner­ship
with commercial outfitters.
6. Noxious weed control program.
7.
A. Implement an aggressive weed control program in the corridor.
Knapweed and leafy spurge are our primary problems in the
corridor, thus far there has been no budget to control this
epidem~c .and the opportunistic species are winning. The weeds
need to be controlled! This will. require special management
concerns as a portion of the problem is in the wilderness.
B. Estimated cost: $5000 every third year.
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in
increment lK (FY92).
Salmon River Road.
,A. Per management plan, achieve a Level 5 maintenance category
from North Fork to Panther Creek, which would provide a smooth,
dust-free running surface for comfort and convenience. Achieve
a Level 4 maintenance category from Panther Creek to Corn Creek
which would provide a smooth running surface and dust control
during most of the recreation season. Includes rehabilitation
of historic borrow sources.
B. Estimated cost: $3,391,000
C. How to accomplish: Forest road reconstruction budget in
increments lN and 6 (FY92).
8. Corn Cree~ Campground.
A. Place a hardened, dust-free surface on the road, implement
knapweed control program throughout campground, install .
irrigation system through group area and around boat ramp,
replace signs, plant trees throughout campground, lengthen
spurs for use by motorhomes and trailers, rehabilitate tables
grilles, and barriers, enlarge parking lot on North side of
campground for boat trailers, buses, horse unloading facilities
and vehicles.
Due to an increased number of Forest visitors and larger trailers
and motorhomes, the present facilities are inadequate, in poor
condition and no longer meet the needs of todays customers.
B. Estimated cost: $60,000
•••
•
•
C. How to accomplish: State of Idaho RV fund and Forest
recreation improvement budget ·in
increment 6 (FY92).
9. Stoddard Trailhead.
A. New toilet building and vault, new hand pump on well, replace
horse unloading ramp and hay mangers.
Present facilities are old, unsafe and inadequate.
B. Estimated cost: $15,000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation improvement budget in
increment 6 (FY92) with assistance from
Backcountry Horsemen.
10. Corn Creek Horse Facilities.
A. Enlarge facility and replace hay mangers.
These facilities can no longer be repaired. They need to be
replaced.
B. Estimated cost: $6000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation improvement budget in
outyear request with assistance from
Backcountry Horsemen.
11. Portable toilet contract.
A. Provide by means of contract, 15 p'ortable toilets at
scattered locations from October 1 through November 15 each year •
. The pr~sent budget does not allow a .sufficient amount of toilets
to accommodate the pressure we receive during Steelhead season.
B. Estimated cost: $2400/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in increment
lK (FY92) and in partnership with Idaho
Dept. of Fish & Game and Idaho Salmon
and Steelhead Unlimited.
12. Salmon River Interpretive Program.
A. Develop and implement a comprehensive interpretive program
for the canyon including signing, self-guided auto tour,
campground programs, and educational programs for schools and
public organizations •
The history along the Salmon River corridor is outstanding.
'
••
•
The present interpretive program is virtually non-existent.
In FY89 we set aside $2500 to ptart the self-guided auto tour
program.To continue with the program and expand to the
forementioned areas, we will need a continuous budget.
B. Estimated cost: $5000/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in increment
lK (FY92) and in partnership with
tourism officials, Historical Society.
13. Vegetation Management Plan.
A. Develop and implement a detailed Vegetation Management Plan
for the l/2 mile wide corridor from North Fork to Corn Creek.
B. Estimated cost: $3000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in
increment lK (FY92).
14. Sign Plan.
A. Develop and implement a detailed sign plan for the corridor.
B. Estimated cost: $2000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in
increment lK (FY92).
15. Preliminary site surveys and designs.
A. Develop preliminary site plans (concept plans) for all sites
proposed for future development. Purpose is to make better
use of equipment working in the area and identification of
waste/fill areas for material cleaned from ditches and slides
B. Estimated cost: $40,500
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget .. in
outyear request.
16. Owl Creek Boating Site.
A. Construct a concrete ramp, 2-unit vault toitet, hand pump
well, parking area, and relocate a segment of the Salmon River
road.
This is the most popular takeout for the recreation section,
however there are no existing facilities.
B. Estimated cost: $193,000
C. How to accomplish: R-4 Recreation Construction Project list.
---···-·---·- _, __________ , ---·--·
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958
~-/ ...
ABSTRACT
Twelve raptor species were recorded during surveys conducted
along the Lower Salmon and Snake River canyons April 2-April 14,
1993. Golden eagles were the most commonly observed species,
followed by red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Prairie
•
falcons, northern harriers, northern goshawks, Cooper's hawks,
sharp-shinned hawks, and turkey vultures. were less frequently
observed. A single bald eagle was seen. Suitable peregrine
falcon nesting habitat was present; but no peregrine falcons were
observed.
The abundance of golden eagles relative to other raptors was
higher than that suggested by previous surveys in the same area,
possibly due to differences in survey methodology, observers,
weather conditions, or actual changes in the raptor community.
Suggestions are made for future surveys to better quantify raptor
numbers and distribution. Helicopter surveys are recommended for
documenting golden eagle nesting activity and for supplementing
peregrine falcon surveys. Ground surveys are recommended for
continued peregrine falcon inventory and for monitoring overall
raptor community structure and abundance."
i
INTRODUCTION
This study was initiated to better document the raptor
community in north-central Idaho along the Lower Salmon River and
in lower Hells canyon on the Snake River. The Lower Salmon River
has been recommended for designation as a Scenic River under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and is classified as a BLM Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, because of its important resource
values (flora, fauna, scenic, cultural, and recreational). The
study also served as part of an inventory of wildlife mitigation
lands located near the confluence of the Snake and Salmon Rivers
that were recently purchased by the Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1992).
Little quantitative information is available on the nongame bird
species that inhabit or use this area. The goal of this survey
was to determine the distribution and relative abundance of
raptors. Because raptors are visible, topline predators, many
land management agencies use them as indicators of ecosystem
health.
The few raptor surveys conducted in the area prior to this
study were done to provide input for the Wild and Scenic River
study of the Lower Salmon (Kochert 1977, Fisher 1978) and to
present measures for protecting raptor nesting and roosting sites
in association with dam construction on the Snake River (Asherin
and Claar 1976). These studies were conducted primarily by
helicopter, supplemented by boat·and ground surveys. Surveys
were conducted along the Lower Salmon River from Whitebird, Idaho
1
i'
... ~ .
•
to its confluence with the snake River in the Hells canyon area,
and down the Snake River to the Grande Ronde River. The American
kestrel was the most commonly observed species in these previous
surveys. Red-tailed hawks and golden eagles followed kestrels in
abundance.
A peregrine falcon helicopter survey was also conducted in
the vicinity of Snow Hole Rapids on the .Lower Salmon River and
Cottonwood Creek on the Snake River in 1979. Although the areas
surveyed had been identified as excellent nesting substrate and
hunting habitat for peregrine falcons (Kochert 1977) none were
observed. Gusty wind conditions made the area difficult to
survey and survey time was minimal (Johnson 1979).
In addition, mid-winter bald eagle counts are conducted
periodically by helicopter on the Lower Salmon and annually by
boat on the Snake River (Cottonwood BLM, unpubl. data). Golden
eagles are also tallied in these mid-January surveys.
Information from the present study and others like it
ultimately provide valuable information for managing the land,
people, and wildlife along the river corridor. Specifically,
raptor survey data can be used to protect individual raptor
species, especially sensitive or endangered species, and their
nest and roosting sites.
STUDY AREA
The landscape of the Lower. Salmon River and Hells Canyons is
diverse and austere. The rivers cut through narrow, deep,
2
desert-like canyons with dramatic topographic variation; vertical
rock cliffs juxtaposed with wide, tiered grasslands. The Salmon
River canyon is deeper than the Grand Canyon, and the Salmon is
the longest free-flowing river in the contiguous United States.
/
There are many rapids and sandy beaches along the river. Forests
and arid rangeland in the upper reaches of the canyon extend to
and beyond the canyon rim. While much of the river canyon is
roaded, there are also large roadless areas.
The area has an extensive and' varied cultural history.
Native Americans have inhabited this canyon for over 10,000
years, and, since the 1860's, the land has been mined, farmed,
and grazed. currently the river corridor is extensively grazed
by cattle, and the·river is used by recreationists, both private
and commercial. The majority of the area is public land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the u.s. Forest
Service, and more recently, the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game.
Hells Canyon on the Snake River has a topography similar to
the Lower Salmon--steep narrow canyons alternating with more wide
open grasslands. overall, it is a deeper canyon, though only by
about 100 m, with longer continuous steep vertical cliffs. The
Snake River is larger and managed differently than the Lower
Salmon. Hells Canyon is a u.s. Forest Service National
Recreational Area, and the flows on the Snake River are regulated
by dams. As a result there has been a loss of sandy beaches on
the upper reaches of Hells Canyon. Large jet boats are also more
3
,,
•
.t."• ....
common on the Snake River. Unlike the Lower Salmon River, the
Snake River has a permit system for recreational nonmotorized
boat use. Both river corridors have cliff walls and faces that
provide excellent raptor nesting, ·foraging, and roosting sites.
The area surveyed encompassed 96 km of the Lower Salmon
River corridor from the Hammer Creek boat launch (RM 53) to the
confluence of the Salmon and snake Rivers, and 11.2 km on the
Snake River corridor from its confluence with the Lower Salmon to
Cottonwood Creek (RM 181.2) (Fig. i).
METHODS
surveys were conducted April 2 to April 14, 1993. This
period was selected as the optimal time to observe raptors along
the river corridor because it provided the maximum overlap in
breeding chronologies. Golden eagles were incubating; red-tailed
hawks were laying and incubating, and both prairie and peregrine
falcons were laying (Kochert et al. 1977, R. Lehman pers. comm.,
E. Levine pers. comm.).
Survey methods were similar to those used in the BLM Snake
River Birds of Prey Area (Kochert et al. 1991). Surveys were
conducted from 20 observation points at approximately 3-km
intervals: 17 on the Lower Salmon River and 3 on the Snake River
in Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (Fig. 1). The majority
of observation points were 1-30 m from the river's edge on either
side of the river. There were 3 observers at the first
(upstream) 12 points and 2 observers at the last 8 points.
4
U1
.........
Figure 1. Raptor survey area, April 1993. Numbers 1 - 20 refer to observation points
described in text.
~
,.
..... ..,
Nine (45%) of the observation points were surveyed for 1.5-2.0
hours; 5 (25%) were surveyed for 2-3 hours; and 6 (30%) were
observed for 3-7 hours.
All surveys were conducted from the ground and limited
primarily to cliff habitats adjacent to the river corridor. The
survey area was defined as the area visible from a given
observation point in which raptors could be seen and positively
identified. In all cases, the observation point selected offered
a panoramic view of the nearest cliff faces.
survey points were not evenly distributed because of
selection for cliff habitat and/or the interference of rapids.
Because of limited time and personnel during this river survey,
suitable areas on the river not near a road were given priority
when choosing survey points. Thus, an abundance of available
raptor habitat was not surveyed.
Optimal weather conditions for surveying include little or
no wind, fog, or rain. Although no surveying was done during
'
downpours of rain or hail, unstable weather is typical for this
time of year. Due to time constraints, surveys were often
conducted during suboptimal weather conditions. Also, for
logistical reasons associated with conducting a river trip,
surveying was conducted primarily from mid-morning through mid­afternoon,
although peak activity of nesting raptors is in the
early morning and late afternoon.
Observations were recorded on a survey form (Appendix A)
modified from those used in peregrine falcon surveys (Levine
6
1992). All raptors sighted and their specific activities were
recorded. Any raptor observed exhibiting territorial defense,
courtship behavior, or nesting behavior was assumed to be
occupying a breeding.territory (Steenhof·l987). Observations were
given the following designations:
Individual bird sighted
Pair of individuals· sighted (P)
Pair or individual exhibiting territorial behavior (T}
Occupied nest site identified (N)
survey equipment included Swift 15x60 spotting scopes, Bushnell
20x45 spotting scope, Nikon 8x25 binoculars, Nikon 8x40
binoculars, and Minolta 10x42 binoculars.
RESULTS
Twelve species of raptors were. recorded: turkey vulture
(Cathartes ~),golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus},
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), red-tailed hawk
(Buteo iamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), prairie
falcon (Falco mexicanus), western screech owl (Otus kennicotti),
and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (Table 1). A mean of 3.2
raptor species were recorded at each observation point. The
golden eagle was observed at 18 of the 20 survey points and was
the most commonly observed raptor· (an estimated 33 individuals}.
The second and third most commonly observed raptor species were
7
·.,
Table 1. Raptors observed along the lower Salmon River and the Snake River to Cottonwood
creek, Idaho, April 2 - April 14, .1993.
Point Location UTM E UTM N Date Hours Observations•
No .. Obs.
1 Lower Salmon 552700 5069100 4/2 2 2 prairie falcons (P,T)
RM 54 2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
2 golden eagles (P)
1 northern harrier
1 American kestrel
2 Lower Salmon 553300 5072450 4(2 2 2 golden eagles (P,T)
RM 49.6 1 northern harrier
Lyons Bar 1 red-tailed hawk (T)
3 . Lower Salmon 554600 5078450 4/3 2 2 prairie falcons (P,T)
00 RM 45.3 2 golden eagles (P,T)
Shorts Bar 1 golden eagle subadult
2 northern harriers (P)
4 Lower Salmon 553800 5079200 4/3 2 1 golden eagle subadult
RM 44.5 1 golden eagle
1 northern harrier
1 American kestrel
1 UNID Accipiter (Cooper's hawk
or northern goshawk)
1 Cooper's hawk
·s Lower Salmon 552050 5081700 4/4 7 2 golden eagles (P)
RM 42.8 2 golden eagles (P)
Pine Bar 2 red-tailed hawks (P,N)
2 red~tailed hawks (P)
1 bald eagle
1 northern harrier
• P ~ pair, T = pair or individual exhibiting territorial behavior, N = nest observed.
<.0
Table 1, cont•d. Raptors observed along the Lower Salmon River and the snake River to
Cottonwood Creek, Idaho April 2 - April 14, 1993.
Point
No.
6
7
8
9
10
Location
Lower Salmon
RM41
Lower Salmon
RM 37
Lower Salmon
RM 32.5
Cougar Canyon
Lower Salmon
RM 30.6
Cougar canyon
Lower Salmon
RM 27.2
UTM E UTM N Date
549900 5082600 4/5
545400 5084500 4/5
542950 5090000 4/6
540300 5091200 4/6
534400 5091400 4/7
Hours
Obs.
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
Observations•
1 golden eagle
2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
1 accipiter (UNID)
(probable northern goshawk)
1 accipiter (UNID)
1 golden eagie
2 red-tailed hawks (P)
1 American kestrel
2 golden eagles (P,T)
2 golden eagles (subadults)
2 turkey vultures
1 northern harrier
1 sharp-shinned hawk
2 American kestrels (P) ·
1 falcon (UNID)
1 golden eagle
1 golden eagle (subadult)
1 American kestrel
1 sharp-shinned hawk
1 northern goshawk
2 turkey vultures (P)
• P = pair, T = pair or individual exhibiting territorial behavior, N = nest observed.
·:<'
.·
-0
Table 1, cont'd. Raptors observed along the Lower Salmon River and the snake River to
Cottonwood creek, Idaho April 2 - April 14, 1993.
Point
No.
11
12'
13
14
15
16
Location
Lower Salmon
RM 25.3
Lower Salmon
RM.23.2
Snow Hole
Lower Salmon
RM 12.5
Eagle Creek
beach
Lower Salmon
RM 10
Skeleton
Creek
Lower Salmon
RM 3.4
Slide Rapid
Lower Salmon
RM 1.5
UTM E UTM N Date
533050 5093100 4/7
530700 5095200 4/8
522000 5092800 4/9
522000 5089200 4/10
520100 5080700 4/11
517900 5078500 4/11
Hours
Obs.
3
3
3'
1.5
1.5
4
Observations'
2 golden eagles (P,T)
1 American kestrel (T)
1 turkey vulture
1 northern harrier
1 northern goshawk
2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
2 golden eagles (P,T,N)
1 golden eagle
1 golden eagle (subadult)
2 red-tailed hawks
1 sharp-shinned hawk
1 American kestrel
1 golden eagle
1 red-tailed hawk
1 northern goshawk
1 American kestrel
2 red-tailed hawks (P)
1 great horned owl
1 American kestrel
2 red-tailed hawks (P)
2 red-tailed hawks (P)
2 prairie falcons
(P, T, Copulating)
2 golden eagles (P)
• P = pair, T = pair or individual ·exhibiting territorial behavior, N = nest observed.
'
t
Table 1, cont'd. Raptors observed along the Lower Salmon River and the snake River to
Cottonwood creek, Idaho April 2 - April 14, 1993.
Point Location UTM E UTM N Date Hours Observations'
No. Obs.
17 Lower -salmon 517050 5078200 4/12 1.5 1 golden eagle
RM 0.4 1 American kestrel
Eye of the
Needle
18 Snake River 515850 5785000 4/12 1 1 golden eagle
RM 187.8
Confluence
19 Snake River 514800 5079700 4/12 2 1 golden eagle (T)
RM 186.8 2 American kestrels (P)
Cave
,_. 20 Snake River 510100 . 5085700 4/13 6 2 American kestrels ·(P,T) ,_. RM 181.2 1 Cool?er's hawk
Cottonwood
Creek Beach 4/14 3 1 golden eagle
1 red-tail.ed hawk (N)
• P z pair, T = pair or individual exhibiting territorial behavior, N = nest observed.
.,
•'
•
red-tailed hawks (11 points, 27 individuals) and American
kestrels (12 points, 15 ~ndividuals). The most infrequently
observed diurnal raptor was the bald eagle (1 observation).
While boating between Maloney Creek and Eagle Creek we observed a
western screech owl. A great horned owl was heard at the
Skeleton Creek campsite.
An average of 2.5 raptors were recorded per hour of
observation, but observation rates were highly variable (Table
2). The greatest frequency of observations (7.3/hr) was in
Cougar canyon on the Salmon at RM 32.5 (point 8). The lowest
frequencies of observations (0.7 and 0.6/hr) were 2 miles
downstream on the Salmon River also in Cougar Canyon (point 9),
and on the Snake River at Cottonwood Creek (point 20).
One occupied golden eagle nest was observed with an adult
incubating. TWo occupied red-tailed hawk nests were observed
with adults incubating (Appendix B). A total of 32 pairs or
nesting areas were documented: 3 prairie falcon, 10 golden eagle,
13 red-tailed hawk, 1 northern harrier, 4 American kestrel, and 1
turkey vulture (Table 1).
DISCUSSION
This study indicates that the Lower Salmon River Canyon and
to a lesser extent Lower Hells canyon on the Snake River provide
nesting and foraging habitat for a large number and variety of
raptor species. Results of this initial survey suggest high
densities of golden eagles, perhaps similar to those in the Snake
12
.....
w
Table 2. Observation rates (birdsfhr) of raptors at 20 points along the Lower Salmon and
snake Rivers, April 2 - 14, 1993.
Obs.
Pt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
All
Raptors
4
2
1.4
2.5
1.4
4
4
7.3
0.7
4
3.3
2.3
1
2.6
3.3
1
1.3
1
1.5
0.64
Avgfhr 2.5
S.D. 1.7
Median 2.2
Min. 0.6
Max. 7.3
NOHA•
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0
0
0.7
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
PRFA
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
AMKS
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
1
1.3
0
0.7
0.3
0.3
0
0.7
0.7
0
0.7
0
1
0.2
0.4
0.4
11,3
0
1.3
GOEA
1
1
1.5
1
0.6
1
1
2.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
1
0.3
0
0
0.5
0.7
1
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.7
0
2.6
BALD
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
o·
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
RTHA
2
0.5
0
0
0.6
2
2
0
0
0
1.3
0.7
0.3
1.3
2.6
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.7
0.9
0.2
0
2.6
TUVU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
0
1.3
·0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
SSHA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0.7
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
COHA
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0.5
NOGO
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
• NOHA - northern harrier, PRFA - prairie falcon, AMKS - American kestrel, GOEA - golden eagle,
BALD - bald eagle, RTHA - red-tailed hawk, TUVU - turkey vulture, SSHA - sharp-shinned hawk,
COHA - cooper•s hawk, NOGO - northern goshawk, GHOW - great horned owl
GHOW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0·
0
0
0
·o
0
0
0.7
UNID
0
0
0.5
0
0
1
0
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
,,
,.
~·· .....
River Birds of Prey Area (SRBPA) (compare approximately 1 pair
per 4.2 km, 1993 for SRBPA, R. Lehman, pers. comm., with 1 pair
approximately every 5.3 km for Lower Salmon/Hells Canyon).
However, since the Lower Salmon/Hells canyon survey was fairly
extensive over a short period of time, few actual nest sites were
observed. Therefore, results may not be completely comparable.
It does seem likely that there may.be more golden eagles in
the study area than were observed. Since surveying was only
performed from the river corridor, ·birds foraging above the
corridor or nesting on rims or up side canyons may have been
missed by this survey. Cold, rainy, and snowy weather also
influenced results. Raptor activity fell off dramatically during
inclement weather and borderline bad weather. Also, estimates of
actual numbers were reduced because most golden eagles would have
been incubating during the study period (Fuller and Mosher 1987).
More intensive.work would be required to make accurate
comparisons with nesting densities in other areas.
Relative abundance of raptors observed in this survey
differed from that reported in previous surveys. This may be due
to survey methodology (aerial and ground 1976-1978 versus ground
alone in this study), weather conditions, observer variablity, or
to actual changes in the raptor community. surveys in the late
1970's found fewer golden eagles and many more American kestrels
than were observed in this study. American kestrels (36) and
red-tailed hawks (29) were observed much more frequently than
golden eagles (lSi in the 1978 study. The 1977 study revealed an
14
almost equal number of golden eagles (21) and American kestrels
{22) and very few red-tailed hawks (7). The results from the
Asherin {1976) study are not directly comparable since the study
area included only the Snake River corridor~ but kestrels were
also the most frequently observed raptor in that survey. In the
1993 survey, an estimated 33 golden eagles, 27 red-tailed hawks,
and 15 American kestrels were observed,. almost the inverse of the
1978 survey.
The number of prairie falcons observed in this study (6
birds) is comparable to the 1978 study {4 birds and 9 scrapes).
No peregrine falcons were observed in either the 1977-78 studies
or in this survey of the same study area. Peregrine falcons
were, however, successfully nesting in Hells Canyon as late as
1965. The species was reported hunting in the same area in 1976
(Fisher 1978). Since ·1986, 73 peregrines have been released at 3
hack sites within the vicinity of Hells canyon on both the Oregon
and Idaho sides of the Snake River (Hein~ich 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992). Peregrines have also been hacked at
Asotin, Washington, and near the Little Salmon River. At least 2
nests have been established on the Salmon and Snake Rivers
outside the area covered in this survey. The Lower Salmon River
Canyon and Hells Canyon NRA both contain a tremendous amount of
potential cliff nesting habitat for peregrines (Levine 1992) that
remains to be adequately surveyed for occupancy.
No recent bald eagle nesting activity has been reported in
the study area and none was observed in this survey. The area is
15
.:·· ·~
apparently primarily used as a wintering area by bald eagles from
December-February (Cottonwood BLM, unpubl. data).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Lower Salmon Canyon and Hells Canyon provide habitat for
a large number and diversity of raptors. The high numbers of
golden eagles alone justify further surveys and research. If the
density of golden eagles is as high or higher than that of the
SRBPA, then significant reasons exist for protecting and studying
the river, its corridor, and the wildlife it supports. To
confirm the actual nesting density of golden eagles, 2 helicopter
surveys for nest sites should be made--1 during incubation in
April and 1 prior to fledging in May. These should be combined
with ground surveys to better document nesting activity.
The possibility that peregrine falcons may be nesting in, or
using the area, also would justify further "protection and study.
Surveys to detect peregrine falcons should target suitable
nesting areas with repeated, intensive searches. survey points
should be located on the river, in suitable side-canyons, and
possibly on the canyon rim. Helicopter surveys for further
habitat assessment and to follow up any potential ground
observations could be combined with golden eagle helicopter
surveys.
continued monitoring at the points established in this study
is also recommended. Baseline monitoring can be used to help
document any changes in the raptor community in response to
16
management activities, and this information can be used in future
management plans. Observation times should be· standardized to 2
hours per point to minimize the factors'potentially accounting
for different observation rates at each point. Future surveys
could also include additional points, time permitting.
Additional observers and 2 boats would provide better coverage of
the area, and could possibly allow combining a general raptor
survey with a peregrine survey.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Bob Lehman, Mike Kochert, and Karen Steenhof, BLM
Raptor Research Technical Assistance Center; Craig Johnson, BLM
Cottonwood Resource Area Biologist; Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
biologists Ed Levine, Jay Crenshaw, and Chuck Harris; and Collin
Hughes, River Guide.
17
'"
LITERATURE CITED
Asherin, D.A. and J. J. Claar. 1976. Inventory of riparian
habitats and associated wildlife along the Columbia and
Snake River. Vol. 3A: Snake River-McNary Reservoir. U. s.
Army Corps of Engineers. 556pp.
Bonneville Power Administration, State of Idaho, and Nez Perce
Tribe. 1992. Wildlife mitigation agreement for Dworshak
Dam, March 1992. 48pp.
Fisher, R. 1978. u.s. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Memo to BLM District Manager Martin
Zimmer, Coeur d'Alene, 10/6/7~.
Fuller, M. R. and J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor Survey Techniques.
Pages 37-65 in B. A. Giron Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. w.
Cline, and D. M. Bird, eds. Raptor Management Techniques
Manual, Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D. c.
Heinrich, W. H. 1986. Rocky Mountain/northwest peregrine falcon
reintroduction. Pages 29-36 in w. Burnham, ed. The
Peregrine Fund, Inc. Operation Report. 1986.
1987. Peregrine reproduction and reintroduction in the
Rocky Mountains and Pacific Northwest. Pages 23-28 in w.
Burnham, ed. The Peregrine Fund, Inc. Operation Report.
i987.
1988. Results from the Rocky Mountains
Northwest. Pages 39-42 in w. Burnham, ed.
Fund, Inc. Operation Report. 1988.
1989. ResuI 1 ts from the Rocky Mounta~•n s
Northwest. Pages 21-23 in w. Burnham, ed.
Fund, Inc. Operation Report. 1989.
1990. Results from the Rocky Mountains
Northwest. Pages 19-22 in w. Burnham, ed.
Fund, Inc. Operation Report. 1990.
18
and Pacific
The Peregrine
and Pacific
The Peregrine
and Pacific
The Peregrine
•
1991. Rocky Mountain and Pacific Northwest Release
Summary. Pages 15-18 in w. Burnham, ed. The Peregrine
~und, Inc. Operation Report. 1991.
1992. Rocky Mountain and Pacific Nortwest Release
Summary. Pages 21~24 in w. Burnham; ed. The Peregrine
Fund, Inc •. Operation Report. 1992.
Johnson, c. 1979. Peregrine Falcon survey. Unpubl. Memo, Bur.
of Land Mgmt., Cottonwood Resource Area.
Kochert, M. N. 1977. Unpubl. data., Snake River Birds of Prey
Area. Bur. of Land Mgmt., Bo~se, ID.
_____ , K. Steenhof and A. R. Bammann. 1977. Reproductive
performance, food habits, and population dynamics of
raptors. Pages 1-39 in Snake River Birds of Prey Research
Project Annual Rept. U.S;D.I., Bur. Land Manage., Boise, ID .
_____ , R. L. Lehman and K. Steenhof. 1991. Raptor qesting
densities and reproductive Success. In Research plan to
assess the impacts of habitat alteration in the Snake River
Birds of Prey area. U.S. D. I. , Bur. Land Manage. , Boise, ID.
Levine, E. 1992. Idaho Peregrine Falcon Survey, Nest Monitoring
and Release Program - 1992. Idaho Department of Fish and
Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. 21pp.
Steenhof, K. 1987. Assessing Raptor Reproductive Success and
Productivity. Pages 162-170 in B. A. Giron Pendleton, B. A.
Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird, eds. Raptor Management
Techniques Manual, Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D. c.
19
.'•, "
RAPTOR SURVEY FORM
LOCATION:
SURVEY POINTS:
OBSERVERS:
TIME: Start =
DESCRIPTION OF AREA OBSERVED:
WEATHER CONDITIONS:
CONDITIONS FOR HEARING:
RAPTORS OBSERVED:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Species
DATE:
Finish = Total =
Age Sex Behavior
(Behavior Code: O=unknown,
2=courtship,
4=nestl ings ,.
!=territory defense
3=incubation
5=fledgings, 6=other)
OTHER BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED:
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. a.
4. 9 ..
5. 10.
PLEASE RECORD: (Use back of page if needed)
A. FOR ALL RAPTORS OBSERVED:
1. General behavior
2. Descriptions of nest site locations if known
3. Miscellaneous (photos, sketches; items collected, etc.)
SPECIES LIST
ON ATTACHED MAP PLOT:
1. cliffs surveyed and observations points
2. Raptors observed: perches,· nest sites, flight paths, etc.
20
.g, ......
~1 . 'W.,.
Appendix B
Locations of raptor nests observed on the Lower Salmon and Snake
Rivers, April 1993
Appendix B. Locations of raptor nests observed on the Lower
Salmon and Snake Rivers, April 1993.
Species Location UTM East UTM North
Red-tailed Hawk Across Snake River from ·509850 5087950
Cottonwood Cr. (Oregon)
Red-tailed Hawk Pine Bar 552250 5081850
Golden Eagle Snowhole Rapids 530700 5094800
21.
. ·~
"vi ~
Submitted by: 11lh'vi.Cf.<; CCIS<;-1.,'\.-~
Approved by:
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
lQ..- t2.~(
Tom Reinecker, Chief
Bureau of Wildlife
.. fr.:::i.2!~ State Nongame Wildlife Manager &
Endangered Species Coordinator

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

The Lower
Salmon River
and You-
Questions About
National Scenic &
Recreational Status
"if~ .,.. iiiG:
The Salmon River Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 289
Riggins, Idaho 83549
and the
Idaho Outfitters & Guides Association
P.O. Box 95 .
Boise, Idaho 8370 I
Reviewed for accuracy by the staff of the Regional Forester,
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Region I.
:>
. ~ .... \._ "",\ '
f"-; •
•
•
What would National Scenic and Recrea
National Scenic and
Recreational designation of
the Lower Salmon is one way
of recognizing and protecting
the natural qualities of our
river. The following questions
and answers are provided to
help you get the facts about
possible designation.
Q: Why should I support National Scenic &
Recreational River designation?
A: The short answer is "to keep it the way it is."
The intent of the national Wild, Scenic and
Recreational Rivers Program is to "balance" the
ri\'ers lost to dams, diversions, channelization
and pollution with those rivers that will remain
protected. Only federal designation of the
special values of the Low.er.Salmon can provide
both p~rmfueilr P~te~tion and nar~ilar·
1
-~_t6ghjti'b"n.
Q. What would National Scenic &
Recreational designation do?
A: Designation would primarily affect federal lands
along the river. The Bureau of Land £ Management and the Forest Service would be
required to f?view lahp i));iqag!l)Jien! pfiil)s, with
public involvement, and assure that the special
values of the river are being adequately
protected. No" dams. or !Vatg ]lrojects.can be
built on designated river segments. Designation
of the river does not automatically restrict
mining.~Fa.r.rhs,jiitjches, hbltre~;incf cabins
along"J~e'"river \\1o_illd continU:e'tp be u~.ed as
nal River designation mean to you?
they-are now.)'!!vlsfcuCiures" within sight of ~he '
.river-could be built unless an~ntlivillual -
randowner sells a scenic easement ta.the federal-
Ian~ management·a~en'ty. 1
Q: How would National Scenic &
Recreational River designation affect
mining and agricultural practices?
A: The public"fands on the Lower Salmon River
have ~!ready been wit_hr·zone·priva1e lll"u.ds. If a proposed
development on private land is clearly
incompatible with the management plan for the
river the government·wonld 1iflerupt to.purJ:has"e~
.-amsceniC 'or cons.eryatU:m ~asetfteltt. Th~oWnef
would b~ able to sell wr(!_e. (.fiver
-management plan Tor the Scenic & Recreational
River Corridor.
Q: Will ilesigiJ,a]jtjp cause restrictions on
1'liftJfOri'zt;d Ji!;e-of the river?
A: No. Restrictions on'bt5ttting u~are not ..•
n'e£SS'ij'~ifyr~l~!e'd"tode;ignation. In the future,
rxcessi\>"e recreational u~e may cause harm to
the riverside environment and could be
restricfed r~gardiess of fed.;;.a(design;tio~.
These issues would be!WidieJ;ied_ih t~ river,
~ manag-~lnent-'plan.
vV}.~r~
~~ ,t~?
y\~ 1QA? .
_.. ~- ---...
"'\----~-------------------------------~------
~~ .. ,
--~---
Rec;.reaticn~ .US'a Ov~rview
Lower· Salmen R~ver
Recreation use en the Lower Salmen River has increased rapidly during the
v~. fifteen years· that haye elaps~d s~nce the-Wild and Scenic Rive~s Study was
completed. Fer example, in 197.5; the ~i~t year accurate statistics were
· · available, tota-l r(e;o.x:Q~st cve:c:night 'fl:cat beating use was- 4'3.. trips with ~~79
\ ~- visitors. In -~~F.o the totals were ?!16 -trips with-.5.'(450 vis:!;t'Ors. In 1975.' nO>
~\~\V' vd~y use float _beating was recorded; in l}l8(.;. ever :rs.,OO.Q_ ·~u. usa flcat~rs· used
the Lower Salmen.
•
Commercial use by river outfitters has shewn remarkable increases. In ~~7~. a
total of nina cutfitt~rs offered commercial trips en the Lower Salmen. In
~9~7, ~crty-fcur different outfitters operated trips.
Non-floating usa, particularly stielnaad .fishing~ is also increasing at a rapid
rata. In 19!78, the fish runs were nearly d.ajilated; and no fish:lng season was
held. In 1981i, there was a s.~al.11'!ontH __ sayon; with mere 1;han '15.:"0.00' .~lfgldi:'s,
fishing the Lower Salmen River.
'Total" recreation .viisi ta"tJ;Qri to the Lower Salmen Ri var in ·f~lf6 "tas j \J'st ever
i50~0~0 visitors •. Besides floating and fishing, ether p~imary activ;tias
include .camping, picnicking,_ swimming1 and sight-seeing. Visiter su.rveyll ·­conducted
by the BLM have indicated that viewing scenery· and •pe~a and qu~at•
are ·among the aiQitt impcr;tan't;' jeaso~s} fer. visiting the riv.er,
Summaries of th.e usa statistics, visiter profiles! .and visitpr preference
studies can be found in the River Management Plans (included elsewhere· in this
packet>. Currant usa reports and '!isitcr studies are maintained by the BLM •
Ccttcnwccd Resource Area Of~ica,
'
z
~
I(r. ; ;: " .....
••
•
.._.
The~~ Sal!?~i~~~· from Long Tom Bar t~ its ~onf~uence with the Snake
River, was desigha~ea a study river under ~action SC~J· of the 1968 Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. E'Oilowihg"compfetipn o"f the s:tt~.tl¥ in 197:!, the rive]:'~wa·s
·~ecommended "to-Cdngres& for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
lo • ,.. ~ - System: Long Tom Bar to Hammer Creek as a ~ecreational component, and'Hammer
Creek to the Snake River as a.~cenic component. The study recommended the
Bureau of Land Management CBLWloas the lea~ ajifeney to manage this seg~ent of
river. Since that time, BLM has managed the· Lower Salmon River to protect the
values for which it was deemed eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic·
Rivers System, pending congressional action on designation.
The enclosed information package contains pertinent documents relating tQ the
currant management situation on the .Lower Salmon. Included in the package are
a ·map !lhowing ~t_:!;c:J!l,l!• and (3) the Rtlt'reiit situation under
our existing management authority.
There are prese.ntly· no: pro\t:i.sions. for a .ginllrlll . .slft'llt:e exchange involving
mining claims. Yalldi~y .~x~~i~~~~ons, as well as preliminary
examinations, have been considered. Based on available information there
is a f~ir potential that some of the claims would be valid.
If Wild and Scenic River desi9natic~ occurs, and qrandfathered mining
claims emerge as -valid:axf~~ing tightS; the following questions may be
considered:
a. Are the ~~~st~ng Cfa~ms and/or operations compa-tible witH Recreation
design~tion? If so, no ~urther action need be taken •
..
•
••
b.
c.
d.
Shottlli' desl'gnation Jllake permanent' t!ie. ~io~~ting .adlilinill"tra,tive , >"
withdrawal to prevent future minerals activitY. except on val±d
existing claims?
Should the BLM be given the authority to purchase or exchange for
existing mining claims?
Should legislation provide more stringent enforcement capabilities
and surface ,protection standards for mining on existing claims wlth­in
this river segment?
2• Condemnation Authority. Tqe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies certain
instances when condemnation authority may be exercised. Since more th~n·
50S of the ·L?1fer S_almon River shore~ine ill already in P,!olblic ownership,
~co~daMfia~ion for fa~ tit~e.is prohibi~ed by the Act. As currently
written, condemnation could. be authorized to obtain scenic easement~ or
use easements tor public access. ·
3.
Since there has been and continues to be a great deal of opposition to
condemnation, any legislative proposal should'clearly specify what type
of condemnation, if any, would be ~uthorized. The following options
appear to be available:
a. ·'No' condemnation authority at all;
b. Condemnation authority as ~rovided in the-Act;
c. Specific languagl! autho_r_izing condemhation for -seenib-easemen.Cs:""on1y.
in ~h.tt proposed· :§cen~c ~segment'! '
Area Boundaries. Tpe boundaries of the area to be designated.must be
specific. Legal subdivision descriptions similar to those describing the
ex:Lsting Secretarial withdrawal would. be the most appropriate-.
4. Budget and Finances. Since the B~~.i~-already managing the river
corridor under 'ii'il.d'-and.-Scenic:. Rivers guidelinelf, it appears .that a major
;ncr ease i'n fundlnq wb\lld' no,t. li~ required. ~3.8-t'ing management plans for
the area, if deemed appropriate, c~Uld ~dAtiri~e ~o be implemented with
only incremental budget increases, as necessary, to manage increased
recreation use caused by the notoriety of designation.
Special appropriations from the J,and ~nd Wat'et'-Conser-vation ·Fund may be
appropriate to facilitatelfurur~·~na-tenure adjustment efforts along the
,/ river. At present, land exch~nges or donatipns are the only
methods of acquiring key riverfront parcels from willing landowners.
Hopefully, this packet will provide complete and adequat~ information. If
furthec information or assistance becomes necessary, it will be readily
provided upon request •
~
t•
ll""*
{ • ~
•
1:968
1973
1973
19tlo'
r
LmlER SALMON RIVER.
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTOR>Y·
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act designated ~3i-miles· of the Salmon River,
from the 1;~ rt; Nqrth :Fork, to its ng T~m· Bar w~icli are ~~t- p;9~~ted· or
managed ~s:.t;·1~e~·were~part. of .a st~4y ~~ver •
. - -
..~
'
•
•
•
16 uses § 1276
1984. Act June 19, 1984, in subsec. (a), added para. (89).
CROSS REFERENCES
This section is referred to in 16 USeS§§ 460gg·13, 1275, 1278-1280, 1283;
30 uses § 1212.
§ 1277. Land acquisition
(a) Grant of authority to acquire; ·State and Indian lands; use of ap11ro1m
ated funds. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agric•"lttlll
are each authorized to acquire lands and interests in land
authorized boundaries of any component of the national wild and
rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act [16 USCS § 12
hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress,
is administered by him, but he shall not acquire fee title to an average
more than 100 acres per mile on both sides of the river. Lands owned by a
State may be acquired only by donation, and lands owned by an Indian
tribe or a political subdivision of a State may not be acquired without tbc
consent of the appropriate governing body thereof as long as the Indian
tribe or political subdivision is following a plan for management and
protection of the lands which the Secretary finds protects the land and
assures its use for purposes consistent with this Act [16 USCS §§ 1271 e1
seq.]. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the land and water
conservation fund shall, w(thout prejudice to the use of appropriatioas
from other sources, be available "to Federal departments and agencies for
the acquisition of property for the purposes of thi~ Act [16 USCS §§ 1271
seq.].
(b) Curtailment of condemnation power in area 50 per centum or more ~
which is owned by Federal or State government. If 50 per centum or more
of the entire acreage within a federally administered wild, scenic or
recreational river area is owned by the United States, by the State or StateS
within which it lies, or by political subdivisions of those States, neither
Secretary shall acquire fee title to any lands by condemnation under
authority of this Act [16 uses §§ 1271 et seq.].INothing contained in
section, however, shall preclude the use of condemnation when nec:essUJ.
to clear title or to acquire scenic easements or such other easements as
reasonably necessary to give ·the public access to the river and to permit
members to traverse the length of the area or of selected segments
c) Curtailment of condemnation power in urban areas covered by
and satisfactory zoning ordinances. Neither the Secretary of the
nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by co~ode1nmati0
the purpose of including such lands in any national wild,
... ~ ........... : .... --1 -=-·-- ---- !/:!' --- _,_ 1 . .. ·.~ .
,...-,
l •
••
~
'·
~- 12·'/Ai o/_:a..
~~
:&~~7E;J .,b ~
..,fl.;., s~ ~cu­To:
From:
Re:
~
On November 26, 1991, Senator Craig dropped in S. 2101 a bill: ~
"To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating • J ~ \.)
the Lower Salmon River in Idaho as a component of the v~ ,C~
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other ~-- _ ---
purposes." ~
I talked to Scooch today and she thought that this bill was ~~
pretty straightforward. She did bring up one point she believed ~
to be potentially troublesome to Chairman Vento. ~
The potential~ sticking point with Vento comes in the area of
"Scenic Easements." In Section (2) Subsection (C), the
legislation states that "private lands and interests in lands
(scenic easements) may be acquired only with the consent of the
owner." This is a break from traditional policy concerning
scenic easements.
She doesn't, however, believe there will be a general problem
concerning condemnation because over 50 percent of the land is
owned by the Federal Government. Subsection (b) of Section 1277
(Land acquisition) discusses "Curtailment of condemnation power
in area 50 % or more of which is owned by Federal or State
government." The subsection states that if 50 percent or more of
the entire acreage is owned by the United States, the secretary
shall not condemn additional lands. Much more than 50 percent of
the land around the Lower Salmon is owned by the feds so there
will be no condemnation involved with the withdrawal.
Scooch suggested a meeting between herself, our office, Stan
Sloss, and Beth of American Rivers. I will put this together if
you so desire. If you need any more info, I've got it.
--.'·. .., .... :.:· •
16 uses § 1276 CONSER VA
1984, Act June 19, 1984, in subsec. (a), added para. (89).
CROSS REFERENCES
This section is referred to in 16 USCS §§ 460gg-13, 1275, 1278-1280, 1283;
30 uses § 1212.
§ 1277. Land acquisition
(a) Grant of authority to acquire; State and Indian lands; use of ao"ororll'i
ated funds. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agricult11111
are each authorized to acquire lands and interests in .land
authorized boundaries of any component of the national wild and
rivers system designated in section 3 of this Act [16 USeS §
hereafter designated for inclusion in the system by Act of Congress,
\y is administered by him, but. he shillCnoCacquii'e fee'tit!e tq_·an avJ!rage
{\
':{; more than JOO·acres·per:milJ< on·botJi ~ides of. the. river. -Lands owned
.t 7 ~ate may be acquirea only by ponation, 'lind lands owned by an 1 ~"'--'-
/ 1, 1
-- ~.V · 7, tribe or a political subdivision of a State may not.be acquired without the
!._r 1.. c~nsent of t~~ appropr!a~e. gov~ming ~~ _there~! as long as the Indian
tnbe or polittcal subdtvtston ts followtng_ a P.Jap ' for management and
,·\~r-- protection of the lands )\1liicli' the.Secrets;ty-fiJUis .pi'o"tects the land and
\:""" assures its use '.[qr:-purposes consistent -with this Act [16 uses §§ 1271 ct
seq.]. Money appropriated for Federal purposes from the lallil:.'llno: ~l!..te'f
C'O_~tYation lund shall, without prejudice to the use of approp'riatioDs
from other sources, be available to Federal departments and agencies for
the acquisition of property for the purposes of this Act [16 USes §§ 1271
seq.].
(b) Ciuiiillment. of condemnation power in area 50 per centum or more fll
· :iliich is owned by ·Federal or State goUI'IIDient. If 50 per centum or more
of the entire acreage within a federally administered wild, scenic or
recreational river area is owned by the United States, by the State or States
within which it lies, or by political s_ubdivisions of those States, ntit!fer
~ecretarx shalf acquire fee title to any land~ by- corrdemnation undel'
authority of this Act [16 uses §§ 1271 et seq.].'INothing c~~~~~::~
~tion, however, sjlall· preclude ihe use of condemnation 'wnc!!f
to ,clear titlt: or !O _acquire scenic easements or _!;uch other ~ments ~
reasonably necessary to give the.public access to the river and to penntl
members to traverse the length of the area or of selected segments
c) Curtailment of condemnation power in urban areas covered
and satisfactory zoning ordinances. Neither the Secretary of the·
nor the Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by cortde:mitatia
the purpose of including such lands in any national wild, .. ~ ......... ; .... _ .. , -=··-- ---- !~ -·· ·'· t • ~ •.••
•
... ••
;· ••
•
~
-:;-.. 7
r~ttD ,
___ BUFFING UP THE NATIONAL JEWELS:
A~ON STRATEGY FOR THE SALMON AND THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE SALMON
WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
I. Introduction
A. Background
The Salmon River ?ri~i~ffi rn·,h~ Sawtooth and rem~i Valleys of central
and eastern Idaho. :Snows• from the S,awt"ooth and ;Sa1.m.on River Mountains. in the
south and the Clearwater and Bicterroo~·Mountains in the"n~rth feed this wild
ri~er. It is 4~5 miles long, the longest free-flowing river in the continental
~nit~d States, and drains 14,000 square miles, From elevations above·8,000
feet, the Salmon cascades to an elevation of 905 feet before it joins the Snake
River.
The river is b~storfcally known as "The~l~er of No ~eturn." For mor~ than,lSO
years_af~er the fir3t white men came to this valley, only one-waJ"trips down
1t!w Salmon River W.ere pOs"sible-.· In recent years, with the advent of;pow=r
boats, skilled operators have been .able to travel ~priver. Even ·tpday,
however, this trip demands the best in skill, experience and equipment.
The Salmon flows through a vast wilderness in the ~cond deep~~ gorge on lne
pontinent. Only the Snake River canyon is deeper. The Salmon's granite-~alled
canyon.is pne-fiftn of a ~ile deeper tnah Grand Canyon. ~Qr.approximately 180
:miles, the Salmon cany?n is mo•e ehan one mile qeep •
Tne Middie ~ork of the Salmon River originates 20 miles northwest of Stanley,
Idaho, with the merging of Bear Valley and Marsh Creeks. It traverses portions
of the Challis, Payette and Salmon National Forests as it flows 106 miles,
northeast through one of the deepest gorges in North America before joining the
Salmon River. It passes through a landscape of rugged peaks and deep valleys.
Near its junction with the Salmon River are the Bighorn Crags, one of the most
rugged and wild mountain ranges in the nation. Only a few trails, landing
strips, private ranches and Forest Service stations are evidence of man's
presence. It is this combination of rugged scenic beauty, quiet isolation and
the challenge of wild water that draws people to float the Middle Fork of the
Salmon River.
Congress established the Middle Fork of the Salmon River as a Wild River in the
original Wild & Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. The Salmon River received it's
designation of a Recreation segment and a Wild segment in the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act in 1980. The remainder of the river upstream from North Fork,
Idaho to it's headwaters has been determined eligible as a Recreation River.
The S~l~op' nistrict ot the BUreau of'Land"Hanagement will be the lead Agency
for the sunaolll:t)! p_r:u"dy. ·with assistance fr.om the ·s.almon, -chall!s anc!.
•.Sawtooth National Forests.
The units involved in the day-to-day management of these rivers have long
recognized that they have not received the emphasis or attention that they
require. Growing numbers of river floaters, jet boaters, hikers, packers, and
the return of the steelhead runs, as well as the pending return of the salmon
runs, and the attendant sport fishing use that follows, have left River
•~
•
•
Managers with ar ever-increasing customer demand for facilities and services
·that normal operations and processes have failed completely to keep pace with.
This paper is being prepared to bring together all the~cattere~ effort~ that
are under way in relation to management of the Wild & Scenic rivers. The
personnel involved with these rivers have the highest commitment to reach a
more appropriate level of management and provision of services so that we can
not only cope with the existing public demand for a high quality resource that
is of National significance, but also prepare for the future increases that are
inevitable from the State-wide and Nation-wide marketing of the Recreation
Strategy, the increased emphasis on promotion from the Idaho Travel Council,
Chamber of Commerce subregions, Outfitter & Guide association, etc.
Sources of available funding, projects already.in the mill, outside cooperators
and partners are contained in recreation construction project lists, trail
construction project lists, and outyear budget requests, including increments
and building blocks. One of the purposes of this paper is to pull all these
scattered efforts together into a ready reference for managers to consider
c~mponents of the program as special emphasis dollars, special allocations or
year-end savings become available
B. PARTNERS
There are many exciting and valuable partners that are concerned with the
care and management of the Salmon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild and
Scenic Rivers. Some have expressed interest in sharing in the care of the
river resource. Some are already cooperators in river management. We are
thrilled with the prospect of developing stronger ties with these partners and
improving the care of a unique Idaho jewel by combining our resources.
Two successful examples o~\Pa~~nars~f~r:l996~are projects that were selected in
the regional Challenge Cost Share competition. "Steelhead Season Sanitation"
joined partners in improving the san!ca~ip~ facil1t1es along the Salmon River.
The Salmon National Forest, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited, and the Idaho
Department of Fish & Game each committed one third of the cost to rent 15
porta-potties during a season which in the past we have been unable to
adequately manage. "Partnership Trash Bags" was an idea that actually came
from the partners. This project, funded 50% by three forests and 50% shared
evenly by Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Outfitters and Guides
Association, and the Bureau of Land Management, serves river users on both the
Middle Fork and the Salmon Rivers and with the information printed on the bags,
not only reminds users of their responsibility to the resource, but also notes
the partners who share in the management of the rivers. There are many more
opportunities out there available to us, many more resources to tap.
The following list indicates partners that are included in the project
breakdown found in this paper in section II. It also includes partners that
are concerned with the river but are not yet tied to a specific project. Not
all partners are listed. We expect this to be a dynamic list;·continuously
evolving as more partners are discovered and excellence in Wild and Scenic
River management progresses .
•
•
•
Existing Partners
Bureau of Land Management
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Idaho Outfitter and Guide Association
Back Country Horsemen
Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited
Bonneville Power Administration
~uture-Partners
··· ·Salmon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
Idaho State Historical Society
Individual river outfitters
Travel and tourism industry
Publishing organizations
Local churches
Local schools and-universities
Environmental organizations
Idaho Travel Council (Region 7)
American Rivers, Inc.
Western River Guides Association
National Organization of River Sports
C. Supporting Documents
1. Public Law .96 "31?" •. JUly--~3, -1980, the Central Idaho Wilderness
Act. This is the legislation which established both the Frllnk 'Church Rfve·t
-of N~ R~torn ~ Wifd~rness and the'Salmon as a Wil4 and Sceni~River.
. ' 2. Public Law 90-542, October 2, 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers. ;- Ac~. This legislation instituted the national wild and scenic rivers
system. _It;. also set aside .the ~~'lidre .. Fork of the Salmon River as one of
the•~ffginal components of that system.
3. Forest Service Manual 2354. Forest d~rection on River Recreation
Management.
4. Land'and Resource Management Plans of the Salmon;· Bitterroot, Nez
Perce, and Payette National Forests address the management of the Salmon
River. The Land and Resource Management Plans of the Challis and Salmon
National Forests address the management of the Middle Fork of the Salmon
River. Specific management guidelines and objectives are detailed in the
Salmon Wild and Scenic River Management Plan and the Middle Fork Wild and
Scenic River Management Plan. The various forest Land and Resource
Management Plans direct the forests to manage these rivers in accordance
with their appropriate management plans.
5. ~almon·Wild & ~cenic River Managem~nt Plan, approvea·-in i982.
6. Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild & Scenic River Management Plan
7. Recreation Review, developed in 1987, presents several suggestions
on the future of the Recreation Program Region-wide and promotes emphasis
•
•
•
for Congressionally-designated areas, such c.s Wild 6 Scenic rivers .
D. Organization
The document is organized by logical river segments. Projects, "things to
do", staffing, etc are displayed by priority for each listed river segment.
The river segments are:
SEGMENT 1 - Salmon River from Ellis downstream to North Fork - not
currently classified but eligible. Administrative units are
Salmon National Forest and Salmon District BLM. This segment
contains all of our cooperative efforts with BLM.
SEGMENT 2 - Salmon River from North Fork to Corn Creek - classification is
Recreation River. Administrative unit is Salmon National Forest
SEGMENT 3 - Salmon River from Corn Creek to Long Tom Bar - classificati~n
is Wild River. Administrative units involved are Salmon,
Bitterroot, Nez Perce and Payette National Forests.
SEGMENT 4 - Salmon River from Lotlg Yom- B'ar- i:o Riggins. Not currently
classified but eligible. Administrative units are Payette and
Nez Perce National Forests.
SEGMENT 5 - Middle Fork of the Salmon River. Classification is Wild River.
Administrative units are Challis and Salmon National Forests .
•
' •
•
•
II. Identified Needs by River Segment by Priority
SEGMENT 1 - SALMON RIVER FROM ELLIS TO NORTH FORK
1. Camp Creek
A. Plan design and build campground facilities including but not
limited to: day use area, 4-6 campsites, boat launching
facilities, vault restrooms and associated roadway and parking.
B. Estimated cost: $25,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
2. Iron Creek
A. Plan, design and build day use area including 2-3 picnic
sites, vault restroom, boat launching facilities and associated
roadway and parking area.
B. Estimated cost: $14,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
3. Pop's Gulch
A. Plan, design and build boat launching facilities, vault
restroom and associated roadway and parking area.
B. Estimated cost: $10,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
4. Eleven Mile
A.~Plan, design and build boat launching facilities, vault
restroom and tWo picnic sites.
B. Estimated cost: $12,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
5. Shoup Bridge Recreation Site
A. Plan, design and build expanded recreational vehicle access
by replacing or rebuilding existing campsites to accommodate
today's larger recreational vehicles, develop well.
B. Estimated cost: $17,500
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds •
·~
•
•
6. Morgan Bar Recreation Site
A. Plan, design and build tent and RV campsit~s and repair
existing well.
B. Estimated cost: $15,000
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds.
7. Tower Rock
A. Plan, design and build w~ll.
B. Estimated cost: $7,500
C. How to accofuplish: BLM appropriated funds.
8. Eightmile Walk-In Fishing Access
A. Plan, design and build v~ult toilet.
B. Estimated cost: $7,500
C. How to accomplish: BLM appropriated funds,
SEGMENT 2 • SALMON RIVER FROM NORTH FORK TO CORN CREEK
1. Current program
A. The existing budget in the recreation section of the river
includes the following items:
Care of developed recreation sites including litter clean-up,
facility maintenance, out house pumping, lawn care, weed control,
trash removal, drinking water testing, and visitor contacts.
Care of dispersed recreation sites including litter clean-up,
destroying fire rings, removing nails and game poles from trees,
contacting forest visitors to inform and edu~ate.
Patrolling the river corridor during heavy use seasons
particularly during Steelhead season.
Permitting and regulating seven commercial outfitters who
operate within the recreation section of the river.
Planning and management of the recreation section of·the
river, of developed and dispersed sites along the·corridor, of
land acquisitions, exch3nges and scenic easements •
:-;
•~
•
•
B. Estimated cost: $45,000/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in base
level (all FY).
2. Cleanup of old homesites.
A. Complete the cleanup and hauling of debris at Proctor, Anita,
Cove, Ga7.ebo Flat and Moose Creeks including cables, rock walls,
fence posts and barbed wire,
This projec!: will requirP. a minimum of 2 GS-3's for approximately
2 weeks for clean-up and rehabilitation. If helicopter work us
needed project cost will raise significantly.
B. Estimated cost: $2000
C. How to accomplish: Fore~t recreation O&M budget in base
level (FY92).
3. Glenn Hegstead Site
A. Determine future of this site and associated buildings.
Alternatives range from elimination to cleanup and restoration.
B. Estimated cost: Restore • $9000; Eliminate - $1000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in base
level (FY92) .
. 4. Increased FS visibility during high use periods.
A. Increased road patrol/Law Enforcement/public contact.
This could be accomplished by using 2 GS-S's to patrol roads and
make contacts with visitors (pri.marily anglers) fi:om October 1
through November 30. A check station would also be·manned during
the same time period to inform, educate, and distribute
information. ·
B. Estimated cost: $8,000/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in base
level (FY92).
5. Human Waste and Garbage Disposal
A. Enlarge and improve human waste disposal facility and
dumpsters at the Dump Creek site.
As the success of our porta-potty program grows the disposal
facility becomes less and less adequate. To avoid future health
problems this facility needs ~o be enlarged and updated.
•
•
B. Estimated cost: $6000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation improvement budget
in increment lD (FY92) and in partner­ship
with commercial outfitters.
6. Noxious weed control program.
7.
A. Implement an aggressive weed control program in the corridor.
Knapweed and leafy spurge are our primary problems in the
corridor, thus far there has been no budget to control this
epidem~c .and the opportunistic species are winning. The weeds
need to be controlled! This will. require special management
concerns as a portion of the problem is in the wilderness.
B. Estimated cost: $5000 every third year.
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in
increment lK (FY92).
Salmon River Road.
,A. Per management plan, achieve a Level 5 maintenance category
from North Fork to Panther Creek, which would provide a smooth,
dust-free running surface for comfort and convenience. Achieve
a Level 4 maintenance category from Panther Creek to Corn Creek
which would provide a smooth running surface and dust control
during most of the recreation season. Includes rehabilitation
of historic borrow sources.
B. Estimated cost: $3,391,000
C. How to accomplish: Forest road reconstruction budget in
increments lN and 6 (FY92).
8. Corn Cree~ Campground.
A. Place a hardened, dust-free surface on the road, implement
knapweed control program throughout campground, install .
irrigation system through group area and around boat ramp,
replace signs, plant trees throughout campground, lengthen
spurs for use by motorhomes and trailers, rehabilitate tables
grilles, and barriers, enlarge parking lot on North side of
campground for boat trailers, buses, horse unloading facilities
and vehicles.
Due to an increased number of Forest visitors and larger trailers
and motorhomes, the present facilities are inadequate, in poor
condition and no longer meet the needs of todays customers.
B. Estimated cost: $60,000
•••
•
•
C. How to accomplish: State of Idaho RV fund and Forest
recreation improvement budget ·in
increment 6 (FY92).
9. Stoddard Trailhead.
A. New toilet building and vault, new hand pump on well, replace
horse unloading ramp and hay mangers.
Present facilities are old, unsafe and inadequate.
B. Estimated cost: $15,000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation improvement budget in
increment 6 (FY92) with assistance from
Backcountry Horsemen.
10. Corn Creek Horse Facilities.
A. Enlarge facility and replace hay mangers.
These facilities can no longer be repaired. They need to be
replaced.
B. Estimated cost: $6000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation improvement budget in
outyear request with assistance from
Backcountry Horsemen.
11. Portable toilet contract.
A. Provide by means of contract, 15 p'ortable toilets at
scattered locations from October 1 through November 15 each year •
. The pr~sent budget does not allow a .sufficient amount of toilets
to accommodate the pressure we receive during Steelhead season.
B. Estimated cost: $2400/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in increment
lK (FY92) and in partnership with Idaho
Dept. of Fish & Game and Idaho Salmon
and Steelhead Unlimited.
12. Salmon River Interpretive Program.
A. Develop and implement a comprehensive interpretive program
for the canyon including signing, self-guided auto tour,
campground programs, and educational programs for schools and
public organizations •
The history along the Salmon River corridor is outstanding.
'
••
•
The present interpretive program is virtually non-existent.
In FY89 we set aside $2500 to ptart the self-guided auto tour
program.To continue with the program and expand to the
forementioned areas, we will need a continuous budget.
B. Estimated cost: $5000/year
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in increment
lK (FY92) and in partnership with
tourism officials, Historical Society.
13. Vegetation Management Plan.
A. Develop and implement a detailed Vegetation Management Plan
for the l/2 mile wide corridor from North Fork to Corn Creek.
B. Estimated cost: $3000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in
increment lK (FY92).
14. Sign Plan.
A. Develop and implement a detailed sign plan for the corridor.
B. Estimated cost: $2000
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget in
increment lK (FY92).
15. Preliminary site surveys and designs.
A. Develop preliminary site plans (concept plans) for all sites
proposed for future development. Purpose is to make better
use of equipment working in the area and identification of
waste/fill areas for material cleaned from ditches and slides
B. Estimated cost: $40,500
C. How to accomplish: Forest recreation O&M budget .. in
outyear request.
16. Owl Creek Boating Site.
A. Construct a concrete ramp, 2-unit vault toitet, hand pump
well, parking area, and relocate a segment of the Salmon River
road.
This is the most popular takeout for the recreation section,
however there are no existing facilities.
B. Estimated cost: $193,000
C. How to accomplish: R-4 Recreation Construction Project list.
---···-·---·- _, __________ , ---·--·
For full document, please contact
Boise State University I Albertsons Library
Special Collections and Archives
1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430
archives@boisestate.edu, 208-426-3958
~-/ ...
ABSTRACT
Twelve raptor species were recorded during surveys conducted
along the Lower Salmon and Snake River canyons April 2-April 14,
1993. Golden eagles were the most commonly observed species,
followed by red-tailed hawks and American kestrels. Prairie
•
falcons, northern harriers, northern goshawks, Cooper's hawks,
sharp-shinned hawks, and turkey vultures. were less frequently
observed. A single bald eagle was seen. Suitable peregrine
falcon nesting habitat was present; but no peregrine falcons were
observed.
The abundance of golden eagles relative to other raptors was
higher than that suggested by previous surveys in the same area,
possibly due to differences in survey methodology, observers,
weather conditions, or actual changes in the raptor community.
Suggestions are made for future surveys to better quantify raptor
numbers and distribution. Helicopter surveys are recommended for
documenting golden eagle nesting activity and for supplementing
peregrine falcon surveys. Ground surveys are recommended for
continued peregrine falcon inventory and for monitoring overall
raptor community structure and abundance."
i
INTRODUCTION
This study was initiated to better document the raptor
community in north-central Idaho along the Lower Salmon River and
in lower Hells canyon on the Snake River. The Lower Salmon River
has been recommended for designation as a Scenic River under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and is classified as a BLM Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, because of its important resource
values (flora, fauna, scenic, cultural, and recreational). The
study also served as part of an inventory of wildlife mitigation
lands located near the confluence of the Snake and Salmon Rivers
that were recently purchased by the Bonneville Power
Administration (Bonneville Power Administration et al. 1992).
Little quantitative information is available on the nongame bird
species that inhabit or use this area. The goal of this survey
was to determine the distribution and relative abundance of
raptors. Because raptors are visible, topline predators, many
land management agencies use them as indicators of ecosystem
health.
The few raptor surveys conducted in the area prior to this
study were done to provide input for the Wild and Scenic River
study of the Lower Salmon (Kochert 1977, Fisher 1978) and to
present measures for protecting raptor nesting and roosting sites
in association with dam construction on the Snake River (Asherin
and Claar 1976). These studies were conducted primarily by
helicopter, supplemented by boat·and ground surveys. Surveys
were conducted along the Lower Salmon River from Whitebird, Idaho
1
i'
... ~ .
•
to its confluence with the snake River in the Hells canyon area,
and down the Snake River to the Grande Ronde River. The American
kestrel was the most commonly observed species in these previous
surveys. Red-tailed hawks and golden eagles followed kestrels in
abundance.
A peregrine falcon helicopter survey was also conducted in
the vicinity of Snow Hole Rapids on the .Lower Salmon River and
Cottonwood Creek on the Snake River in 1979. Although the areas
surveyed had been identified as excellent nesting substrate and
hunting habitat for peregrine falcons (Kochert 1977) none were
observed. Gusty wind conditions made the area difficult to
survey and survey time was minimal (Johnson 1979).
In addition, mid-winter bald eagle counts are conducted
periodically by helicopter on the Lower Salmon and annually by
boat on the Snake River (Cottonwood BLM, unpubl. data). Golden
eagles are also tallied in these mid-January surveys.
Information from the present study and others like it
ultimately provide valuable information for managing the land,
people, and wildlife along the river corridor. Specifically,
raptor survey data can be used to protect individual raptor
species, especially sensitive or endangered species, and their
nest and roosting sites.
STUDY AREA
The landscape of the Lower. Salmon River and Hells Canyons is
diverse and austere. The rivers cut through narrow, deep,
2
desert-like canyons with dramatic topographic variation; vertical
rock cliffs juxtaposed with wide, tiered grasslands. The Salmon
River canyon is deeper than the Grand Canyon, and the Salmon is
the longest free-flowing river in the contiguous United States.
/
There are many rapids and sandy beaches along the river. Forests
and arid rangeland in the upper reaches of the canyon extend to
and beyond the canyon rim. While much of the river canyon is
roaded, there are also large roadless areas.
The area has an extensive and' varied cultural history.
Native Americans have inhabited this canyon for over 10,000
years, and, since the 1860's, the land has been mined, farmed,
and grazed. currently the river corridor is extensively grazed
by cattle, and the·river is used by recreationists, both private
and commercial. The majority of the area is public land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the u.s. Forest
Service, and more recently, the Idaho Department of Fish and
Game.
Hells Canyon on the Snake River has a topography similar to
the Lower Salmon--steep narrow canyons alternating with more wide
open grasslands. overall, it is a deeper canyon, though only by
about 100 m, with longer continuous steep vertical cliffs. The
Snake River is larger and managed differently than the Lower
Salmon. Hells Canyon is a u.s. Forest Service National
Recreational Area, and the flows on the Snake River are regulated
by dams. As a result there has been a loss of sandy beaches on
the upper reaches of Hells Canyon. Large jet boats are also more
3
,,
•
.t."• ....
common on the Snake River. Unlike the Lower Salmon River, the
Snake River has a permit system for recreational nonmotorized
boat use. Both river corridors have cliff walls and faces that
provide excellent raptor nesting, ·foraging, and roosting sites.
The area surveyed encompassed 96 km of the Lower Salmon
River corridor from the Hammer Creek boat launch (RM 53) to the
confluence of the Salmon and snake Rivers, and 11.2 km on the
Snake River corridor from its confluence with the Lower Salmon to
Cottonwood Creek (RM 181.2) (Fig. i).
METHODS
surveys were conducted April 2 to April 14, 1993. This
period was selected as the optimal time to observe raptors along
the river corridor because it provided the maximum overlap in
breeding chronologies. Golden eagles were incubating; red-tailed
hawks were laying and incubating, and both prairie and peregrine
falcons were laying (Kochert et al. 1977, R. Lehman pers. comm.,
E. Levine pers. comm.).
Survey methods were similar to those used in the BLM Snake
River Birds of Prey Area (Kochert et al. 1991). Surveys were
conducted from 20 observation points at approximately 3-km
intervals: 17 on the Lower Salmon River and 3 on the Snake River
in Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (Fig. 1). The majority
of observation points were 1-30 m from the river's edge on either
side of the river. There were 3 observers at the first
(upstream) 12 points and 2 observers at the last 8 points.
4
U1
.........
Figure 1. Raptor survey area, April 1993. Numbers 1 - 20 refer to observation points
described in text.
~
,.
..... ..,
Nine (45%) of the observation points were surveyed for 1.5-2.0
hours; 5 (25%) were surveyed for 2-3 hours; and 6 (30%) were
observed for 3-7 hours.
All surveys were conducted from the ground and limited
primarily to cliff habitats adjacent to the river corridor. The
survey area was defined as the area visible from a given
observation point in which raptors could be seen and positively
identified. In all cases, the observation point selected offered
a panoramic view of the nearest cliff faces.
survey points were not evenly distributed because of
selection for cliff habitat and/or the interference of rapids.
Because of limited time and personnel during this river survey,
suitable areas on the river not near a road were given priority
when choosing survey points. Thus, an abundance of available
raptor habitat was not surveyed.
Optimal weather conditions for surveying include little or
no wind, fog, or rain. Although no surveying was done during
'
downpours of rain or hail, unstable weather is typical for this
time of year. Due to time constraints, surveys were often
conducted during suboptimal weather conditions. Also, for
logistical reasons associated with conducting a river trip,
surveying was conducted primarily from mid-morning through mid­afternoon,
although peak activity of nesting raptors is in the
early morning and late afternoon.
Observations were recorded on a survey form (Appendix A)
modified from those used in peregrine falcon surveys (Levine
6
1992). All raptors sighted and their specific activities were
recorded. Any raptor observed exhibiting territorial defense,
courtship behavior, or nesting behavior was assumed to be
occupying a breeding.territory (Steenhof·l987). Observations were
given the following designations:
Individual bird sighted
Pair of individuals· sighted (P)
Pair or individual exhibiting territorial behavior (T}
Occupied nest site identified (N)
survey equipment included Swift 15x60 spotting scopes, Bushnell
20x45 spotting scope, Nikon 8x25 binoculars, Nikon 8x40
binoculars, and Minolta 10x42 binoculars.
RESULTS
Twelve species of raptors were. recorded: turkey vulture
(Cathartes ~),golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus},
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), red-tailed hawk
(Buteo iamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), prairie
falcon (Falco mexicanus), western screech owl (Otus kennicotti),
and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (Table 1). A mean of 3.2
raptor species were recorded at each observation point. The
golden eagle was observed at 18 of the 20 survey points and was
the most commonly observed raptor· (an estimated 33 individuals}.
The second and third most commonly observed raptor species were
7
·.,
Table 1. Raptors observed along the lower Salmon River and the Snake River to Cottonwood
creek, Idaho, April 2 - April 14, .1993.
Point Location UTM E UTM N Date Hours Observations•
No .. Obs.
1 Lower Salmon 552700 5069100 4/2 2 2 prairie falcons (P,T)
RM 54 2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
2 red-tailed hawks (P,T)
2 golden eagles (P)
1 northern harrier
1 American kestrel
2 Lower Salmon 553300 5072450 4(2 2 2 golden eagles (P,T)
RM 49.6 1 northern harrier
Lyons Bar 1 red-tailed hawk (T)
3 . Lower Salmon 554600 5078450 4/3 2 2 prairie falcons (P,T)
00 RM 45.3 2 golden eagles (P,T)
Shorts Bar 1 golden eagle subadult
2 northern harriers (P)
4 Lower Salmon 553800 5079200 4/3 2 1 golden eagle subadult
RM 44.5 1 golden eagle
1 northern harrier
1 American kestrel
1 UNID Accipiter (Cooper's hawk
or northern goshawk)
1 Cooper's hawk
·s Lower Salmon 552050 5081700 4/4 7 2 golden eagles (P)
RM 42.8 2 golden eagles (P)
Pine Bar 2 red-tailed hawks (P,N)
2 red~tailed hawks (P)
1 bald eagle
1 northern harrier
• P ~ pair, T = pair or individual exhibiting territorial behavior, N = nest observed.